Support NeoGAF

[Greedings]

I will put in this comment all the things I find"
You can see here France has way more rape than United Staes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_...00000_people,_2003_-_2011,_United_Nations.png

So? That doesn't do anything for your argument. Italy also has less, but again, so the fuck what? You can't conclude anything from these data, and by drawing conclusions other than there is more rapes in country X than country Y, you just display your bias.

 

[Pompi]

Rape in Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Texas

7500 rapes for 25,000,000 people.
In London alone there was 7500 rapes for a population of about 8.1 million.

London rapes is soaring as well.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...e-in-sex-attacks-in-the-capital-a3774171.html

Ok, kind of hard to find data on rape prevention due to guns, as the rape was not committed you don't know if it would.

 

[DS_Joost]

Rape in Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Texas

7500 rapes for 25,000,000 people.
In London alone there was 7500 rapes for a population of about 8.1 million.

London rapes is soaring as well.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...e-in-sex-attacks-in-the-capital-a3774171.html

Ok, kind of hard to find data on rape prevention due to guns, as the rape was not committed you don't know if it would.

Thing is, no matter how terrible rape is, at least there's a chance to survive it. Getting shot with a shotgun, however...

 

[Pompi]

Anyway, we can see Texas has a lot less murder and rape than London. And in London guns are banned.
So at least you can't argue it is the guns that are responsible for the violence, because in London they kill a lot of people with Knives.
I don't suppose you think a knife stab is just something you can heal your HP from like in a game.

Edit: There is more murder in London as well. Knives are dangerous as much as guns.

 

[DS_Joost]

Anyway, we can see Texas has a lot less murder and rape than London. And in London guns are banned.
So at least you can't argue it is the guns that are responsible for the violence, because in London they kill a lot of people with Knives.
I don't suppose you think a knife stab is just something you can heal your HP from like in a game.

Edit: There is more murder in London as well. Knives are dangerous as much as guns.

Whahahahahahahahaha. Tell that to the victims of mass school shootings. Also, keep singling out individual cities. Let's talk about population numbers roughly equitable. Like the whole if Europe and the USA.

If we are going to play this game your way, how about comparing London to Chicago darling?

See where we end up then.

 

[Pompi]

I took into account population.
Texas is 25 million, and London is 8.1 million.
I said, the US is a big place.
Why don't you take into account places like Russia and Serbia in your statistics? They are also part of Europe.
We just found no correlation between banning guns and violence.

 

[DS_Joost]

I took into account population.
Texas is 25 million, and London is 8.1 million.
I said, the US is a big place.
Why don't you take into account places like Russia and Serbia in your statistics? They are also part of Europe.
We just found no correlation between banning guns and violence.

Now between banning guns and death, mate.

 

[Pompi]

That as well, there is more homicide rates in London than in most Texas.
Also people are less safe in London in General.
You think getting stabbed and not dying in London would make you living there a nice experience?
People don't want to die AND get assaulted and feel unsafe.
Sometimes the fear of violence is worse than the violence itself.
And in London there is a lot of fear.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

Im suprise that youtube dont ban the video

 

[Snow_Lizard]

That is exactly why I say take the guns away. Not only the rights, but the guns with them.

I agree it's difficult, but I can't agree it is impossible. The ones standing in the way are the American people, not the the way the laws are constructed...

Take away rights! Always the best response to a video that scares people.

Well, it's impossible. Read the process for amending the US Constitution. There is exactly zero chance that the Second Amendment will be repealed.

 

[Papa]

That is exactly why I say take the guns away. Not only the rights, but the guns with them.

I agree it's difficult, but I can't agree it is impossible. The ones standing in the way are the American people, not the the way the laws are constructed...

I see that you have conveniently ignored the counter arguments I provided you on page 2 and are now throwing out stuff like “orange pig in the office”. Really showing your stripes here, champion.

 

[DS_Joost]

Take away rights! Always the best response to a video that scares people.

Well, it's impossible. Read the process for amending the US Constitution. There is exactly zero chance that the Second Amendment will be repealed.

With that attitude, indeed it is impossible.

There comes a point where keeping a 200 year old right, made in a completely different time and place, becomes idiotic.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Take away rights! Always the best response to a video that scares people.

Well, it's impossible. Read the process for amending the US Constitution. There is exactly zero chance that the Second Amendment will be repealed.

The Second is specifically designed and placed to protect the First.

Hence why there are countries in Europe where you can get arrested and jail time for jokes and words.

 

[Snow_Lizard]

Now between banning guns and death, mate.

You're cherry-picking your statistics. Yes, the US has a lot more guns than the U.K., and a much higher murder rate. But Switzerland has a lot more guns than the U.K. (about seven times the private ownership), and a much lower murder rate.

In the US, compare Minneapolis with St. Paul. These two cities are separated by a river, and from the air look like one city. There is no difference at all in gun laws between the two. Yet the murder rate in St. Paul is four times higher than Minneapolis.

The statistics don't prove, or even suggest, that tighter gun laws result in lower murder rates.

 

[Snow_Lizard]

With that attitude, indeed it is impossible.

There comes a point where keeping a 200 year old right, made in a completely different time and place, becomes idiotic.

Works for me. If your attitude is representative of how things are in the EU, I'd rather get shot dead here than live there.

 

[Papa]

In this scenario I actually think it would have. Guns make it very easy to kill someone, you just aim and pull a trigger. With knives there is still a degree a physicality to it. You have to move in close and stab an object into your victim, often repeatedly. A frail child could point a gun at at a 6'4 man and kill them, that same child may struggle to kill the same person with a knife.

In this example you have an old man in poor physical health (based on the condition of his body) and another middle aged man in equally poor condition physically confronting a much larger aggressive male. They may have been able to defend themselves with knives but it would have been a hell of a lot harder and I doubt they would have been able to kill their victim so effortlessly which in turn may have made them use more caution in their approach.

Often in London the people being killed with knives are kids in gangs or unfortunate people caught up in gang disputes. These are people that go out with knives with the intention to kill rather than random arguments that escalate into murder.

Sure you can kill someone with a knife but guns undeniably make the act much easier and if something is easy to do then it's easy to understand why it may happen more frequently.

If they had knives in this situation, there’s every chance the big guy with the baseball bat could have killed them.

 

[DS_Joost]

Works for me. If your attitude is representative of how things are in the EU, I'd rather get shot dead here than live there.

Then please, please stay there.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Then please, please stay there.

Sounds like something a nationalist in America would say.



Oh how intertwined/reflective we be.

 

[Papa]

Whahahahahahahahaha. Tell that to the victims of mass school shootings. Also, keep singling out individual cities. Let's talk about population numbers roughly equitable. Like the whole if Europe and the USA.

If we are going to play this game your way, how about comparing London to Chicago darling?

See where we end up then.

Gun ownership has been around a lot longer than mass school shootings. Something has changed in the last few decades and I can’t pinpoint whether it’s cultural or something else.

 

[SoulChamber]

This is horrible.

I hope that those two enjoy being in prison for the rest of their lives.

Dumb, so dumb.

 

[Pompi]

If they had knives in this situation, there’s every chance the big guy with the baseball bat could have killed them.

So you are saying all 3 of them would be dead?
Because even if he did beat them up with a baseball, stabbing someone takes less than a second, and knife stabs are life changing injuries for the most part.
Even the best martial artists in the world will tell you picking a fight with someone with a knife is dangerous.
A knife is very easy to use, and can wreck havok in your body in a very short time.
The main difference between a gun and a knife is range and ease of use.

You can stab someone 20 times in a matter of seconds.

 

[oagboghi2]

You don't give a fuck about the rest of the world anyway so yeah, why bother?

People like you tell me you deserve that orange pig in the office...

Why bother listening to uneducated, bullshit takes from people who know nothing about my country, our laws and our rights.

I'll take my president and my country over you half assed opinion, thanks

 

[DeepEnigma]

So you are saying all 3 of them would be dead?
Because even if he did beat them up with a baseball, stabbing someone takes less than a second, and knife stabs are life changing injuries for the most part.
Even the best martial artists in the world will tell you picking a fight with someone with a knife is dangerous.
A knife is very easy to use, and can wreck havok in your body in a very short time.
The main difference between a gun and a knife is range and ease of use.

You can stab someone 20 times in a matter of seconds.

It's also already been proven in the courts and defense training, that if someone has a gun and the other person has a knife within 20 feet or less about 6 to 7 yards which is seemingly a great distance, your average person who's not already pointing the gun but having it in a resting position would have the attacker on top of them stabbing him/her in mere fractions of a second.

There was actually a court case several years ago about the very situation and they had a trained officer in the courtroom with a firearm in a resting position and another person with a rubber knife and they played that scenario out, and every single time the person with the knife was already on top of the officer with it to his throat before he was able to even unholster his weapon.

20 ft or 6-7 yards may sound like a great distance, but it's literally a few wide steps in fractions of a second to be on top of someone factoring reaction time of the defender and everything.

I believe you can still find the video on YouTube from the court case.

 

[Ichabod]

5 pages of pretty entertaining debate but no mention of portrait filming? Am disappoint, GAF.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

The only thing missing in that video was Dueling Banjos

 

[Papa]

5 pages of pretty entertaining debate but no mention of portrait filming? Am disappoint, GAF.

Well in the first post, I did say that they were at the bottom of the gene pool.

 

[Hulk_Smash]

Your use of commie cities already tells me enough. Enjoy your freedom. A hard fought freedom that is becoming more and more decadent by the day.

Freedom won with guns. But thanks for the lack of dialogue.

 

[Gek54]

I don’t get the problem, he’s dumping trash in their driveway. When confronted he threatens repeatedly to murder them. They are completely calm.

Video makes it unclear but I’d guess he lunges at the guy with the handgun and gets put down.

Wife should be fined for illegal dumping, no charges for self defense.

Yup.

I would feel far more safe living next to the two gun men than that raging psycho neighbor from hell who threatened to kill them and then attempted to do so.

They were completely within their right to be there and defend themselves.

I will be surprised if there is any conviction.

 

[octiny]

WTF are you talking about?

Exactly what I fucking said.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Lot of people ignoring the fact that the old guy was repeatedly telling him to take a swing. To me it looked like they wanted him to try something. And yes he was an idiot for threatening to kill them with a baseball bat while they were holding guns.

Anyway just watched the end a few times trying to figure out what happened, looks like after the first shots were fired he threw the baseball bat at the old man and thats when the son fires his shotgun.

 

[cryptoadam]

Leave aside for the moment that I believe the right extends to carrying a gun, an issue the Supreme Court hasn't explicitly addressed. What would you suggest? Given that people have the right to keep guns at home, what law would you suggest that would prevent them from using them in a crime?

For instance, say a person legally has a gun. He goes crazy and decides to go to a local store and shoot a bunch of people. You could pass a law against taking a gun out of a home; but the guy has already decided to commit the far more serious crime of multiple murders. So why would he be deterred by a law against carrying the gun to the site of the murders?

That's like fighting drunk driving by making it illegal to go outside a building while drunk. If the drunk doesn't care that's he's breaking the law by driving, why would he care that he's also breaking the law by going outside his house?

The only people who would be deterred from carrying by your law would be those who aren't planning to break the law - like those who carry them for self-defense.

That's why talking about gun control is a waste of time. It will simply never have a positive effect, and can only have a negative effect. Regardless, people just keep bringing it up, distracting everyone from finding practical solutions to the problems.

First off you can't prevent every crime this isn't minority report with pre crime cogs, but you can make efforts to reduce crime. Like with speeding some people are going to speed, but there are laws and efforts to reduce speeding. We don't just throw up our hands and say people are going to speed so lets get rid of speed limits and speeding tickets/cops etc...
As well as a citizen its not your job to stop crimes, that the polices job. So I personally do not think that people should be walking around with guns because they think its their job to stop crime. No one would walk into a hospital and start performing surgery because they bought a pair of hospital scrubs and stethoscope. The notion that the US is the wild west and that you need to be packing so you can blow away all the criminals is a very foreign idea to me.

If it was up to me I would basically make it that you can own 1 basic gun, non automatic, with a small clip. Guns can only be purchased at federally approved shops and I would make the age limit 21 or even 25. When you purchase a gun you need to buy a safety box as well, and with tech we have to today it could be a biometric lock for even more security. Ammo sold would also be limited. If you are arguing you need a gun for self defense then a simple hand gun with maybe 5 or 6 bullet clip is more than enough. Hunters could get hunting rifles, but they would need a hunting license and would need to prove they actually hunt. Collectors could get a special license that would allow them to get more guns but no ammo for them and you would remove the firing mechanism as they would only be for collecting purposes. Shooting ranges and hunting clubs would exsist where you could "rent" different guns on their premises if you want some more exotic guns.

Its only a waste of time because people who are pro guns stone wall and refuse to have any discussion. What practical solutions are you talking about? There is a lot that can be done but we know guns are created to kill so lets look at limiting the killing tools as well. And the other problem is that once you stone wall the discussion and go all in you have to defend these 3 assholes for being to own guns and carry them around. 1 guy was threatening to murder 2 people but because of the slavish position you take with guns you are forced to defend this guys right to a gun so he can murder people. And then you have the other 2 guys who actually used a gun to kill someone over a mattress. So once again because you have drawn a line in the sand and don't want to entertain any discussion you have to defend a murders right to a gun.

If the guy wasn't murderd would you have sold him a gun after hearing him say he is going to kill 2 people?

 

[cryptoadam]

That guy had some serious anger issues not to have a clear enough head to realize the situation wasn't in his favor, yet still trying to provoke those two rednecks. Especially with his wife and kid there... not too bright.



He might not have deserved it, but he def asked for it.

I think all 3 of them asked for it by escelating the stupid situation. I don't doubt for a second if the dead guy had a gun he wouldn't of pulled it and probably shot those guys. And lets say he walked away, I bet if he got his hands on a gun maybe he comes back and kills them. He did repeatedly say he was going to murder them.

You know what all 3 our pussies. Settle things mano a mano. Drop the bat, drop the guns and fight it out if thats what needs to happen.

 

[cryptoadam]

I know what you were responding to.

Those are things that can be used as weapons. When someone is going from "I can own scissors or Drain-O, where do we draw the line at stopping people from owning weapons," you don't say , "Well, if we're not going to stop people from owning guns, why not let us rape people?"

Guns, thats where we stop. And if all of a sudden knives become a problem then look into it. But saying if you talk about gun control then it means lets take away driving privilages or the right to buy drain-o your just deflecting because you don't want to talk about the issue.

This is about guns. Not knives, drain-o, driving etc...

 

[Pompi]

Knives are already a problem in London. So what are you gonna do about knives in London?
The Homocide rate in London is higher than in most Texas and most murders in London are done with knives and Machetes.
Edit: There is an assumption in Democracy that most people won't go on killing people randomly, even if they can.
That's why you don't need a Police officer to follow every citizen in the US who might decide to kill someone.
Killing is easy, but Policing still works because the based assumption is that most people respect Democracy and the law.
When you have people not respecting the host country, you are going to have an increasing problem policing them, no matter what is in their disposal.

 

[mekes]

Knives are already a problem in London. So what are you gonna do about knives in London?

I’m a big advocate against knife crime in London. I’ve been campaigning for a switch to spoons for years now.

 

[Barsinister]

 

[Gek54]

Except guns are the equaliser here. That raging psycho neighbor with the bat probably could have beat both of them to death if they were unarmed and apparently even with them having guns he was still willing to try.

 

[Papa]

I’m a big advocate against knife crime in London. I’ve been campaigning for a switch to spoons for years now.

I dunno man, think of all the red tape and bureaucracy that would be required to implement the spoon licensing process.

 

[Snow_Lizard]

Guns, thats where we stop. And if all of a sudden knives become a problem then look into it. But saying if you talk about gun control then it means lets take away driving privilages or the right to buy drain-o your just deflecting because you don't want to talk about the issue.

This is about guns. Not knives, drain-o, driving etc...

It's not deflecting, it's the heart of the issue - you're blaming human evil on human tools. The end result of which is exactly the kind of stupidity on display in the U.K. right now, including a movement to require a license to buy corrosive substances.

https://www.change.org/p/uk-parliament-prohibit-the-purchase-of-acid-to-those-without-a-licence

 

[cryptoadam]

It's not deflecting, it's the heart of the issue - you're blaming human evil on human tools. The end result of which is exactly the kind of stupidity on display in the U.K. right now, including a movement to require a license to buy corrosive substances.

https://www.change.org/p/uk-parliament-prohibit-the-purchase-of-acid-to-those-without-a-licence

And in the UK they have acid attacks.

But from my point of view I don't have issues with these types of regulations. I don't feel the urge to own a knife nor a gun nor buy acid.

But stick to the subject which is guns.

If you are slavishly married to 2nd ammendment then you have to defend a guy who says I AM GOING TO MURDER YOU to go and buy a gun.

There has to be something in between Murica guns bro, and round up gun owners and through them in internment camps. I just don't see how you can see these 3 guys and honestly say they should be able to own and carry guns around.

 

[Papa]

And in the UK they have acid attacks.

But from my point of view I don't have issues with these types of regulations. I don't feel the urge to own a knife nor a gun nor buy acid.

But stick to the subject which is guns.

If you are slavishly married to 2nd ammendment then you have to defend a guy who says I AM GOING TO MURDER YOU to go and buy a gun.

There has to be something in between Murica guns bro, and round up gun owners and through them in internment camps. I just don't see how you can see these 3 guys and honestly say they should be able to own and carry guns around.

In this case, the act of acquiring the gun occurred before the act of saying “I am going to kill you”, so it couldn’t have been prevented without some kind of Minority Report pre-cog system. I’m not sure that a blanket banning of all guns would prevent it either because: a) it would create a black market in which they could still acquire the guns illegally and unregulated, and b) it would lead to an increase in other weapon crimes.

I suspect a war on gun ownership would work about as well as the war on drugs. We agree on the desired end result (reduced gun-related deaths) but disagree on the means. You need to address the demand end of the system instead of the supply end, which is what your proposed ban is doing. The fundamental question is therefore: why do Americans want to own guns?

 

[DS_Joost]

In this case, the act of acquiring the gun occurred before the act of saying “I am going to kill you”, so it couldn’t have been prevented without some kind of Minority Report pre-cog system. I’m not sure that a blanket banning of all guns would prevent it either because: a) it would create a black market in which they could still acquire the guns illegally and unregulated, and b) it would lead to an increase in other weapon crimes.

I suspect a war on gun ownership would work about as well as the war on drugs. We agree on the desired end result (reduced gun-related deaths) but disagree on the means. You need to address the demand end of the system instead of the supply end, which is what your proposed ban is doing. The fundamental question is therefore: why do Americans want to own guns?

This is interesting because this is what I try to find out, but I never get a clear answer to this that doesn't sound halfway decently built in my opinion. It's all about my rights and our country and whatnot. At least take into account the kinds of guns circulating in the USA. I mean, a small pistol with a small magazine would at least be somewhere near reasonable. But to be willing to own a shotgun raises my eyebrows, and I honest to god have never found a person who could give me a sane reason for owning one. That is, for me, the decadency of the right to own a gun. Why would anyone want a shotgun?

It's the fetishizing of the gun related lifestyle, the madness in trying to defend the outliers that the 2nd Amandment also gives right to.

I mean by all means keep the guns. But surely people would love some regulation, no? To know that people are out there like these three people, and they can't just get simple small, handguns but shotguns and rifles as well, individuals who are in my opinion complete lunatics...

Surely, that wasn't the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment, right?

The problems definitively arise for me when we are not defending simple handguns and safety. The ability to defend oneself I do not agree with I can see even though I still disagree with it. But some of these examples have nothing to do with defense anymore. The argument that, because they have one, then at least you can shoot back is completely alien to me and for me is an insane thing to even think about. Where does that race end then?

 

[AfricanKing]

Knives are already a problem in London. So what are you gonna do about knives in London?
The Homocide rate in London is higher than in most Texas and most murders in London are done with knives and Machetes.

Thats all bullshit, im shocked no one has stepped in to correct that false information

 

[EverydayBeast]

Dude could have stepped away, and the wife hyping dude up while filiminf didn’t help

 

[Papa]

This is interesting because this is what I try to find out, but I never get a clear answer to this that doesn't sound halfway decently built in my opinion. It's all about my rights and our country and whatnot. At least take into account the kinds of guns circulating in the USA. I mean, a small pistol with a small magazine would at least be somewhere near reasonable. But to be willing to own a shotgun raises my eyebrows, and I honest to god have never found a person who could give me a sane reason for owning one. That is, for me, the decadency of the right to own a gun. Why would anyone want a shotgun?

It's the fetishizing of the gun related lifestyle, the madness in trying to defend the outliers that the 2nd Amandment also gives right to.

I mean by all means keep the guns. But surely people would love some regulation, no? To know that people are out there like these three people, and they can't just get simple small, handguns but shotguns and rifles as well, individuals who are in my opinion complete lunatics...

Surely, that wasn't the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment, right?

The problems definitively arise for me when we are not defending simple handguns and safety. The ability to defend oneself I do not agree with I can see even though I still disagree with it. But some of these examples have nothing to do with defense anymore. The argument that, because they have one, then at least you can shoot back is completely alien to me and for me is an insane thing to even think about. Where does that race end then?

I answered all of these questions in my post on page 2, which you ignored.

Guns are regulated in the US. Go and listen to the interviews with Colion Noir on the Rubin Report and/or Rogan podcast if you genuinely want to understand the other side's perspective rather than just argue angrily and emotionally on the internet.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

This is interesting because this is what I try to find out, but I never get a clear answer to this that doesn't sound halfway decently built in my opinion. It's all about my rights and our country and whatnot. At least take into account the kinds of guns circulating in the USA. I mean, a small pistol with a small magazine would at least be somewhere near reasonable. But to be willing to own a shotgun raises my eyebrows, and I honest to god have never found a person who could give me a sane reason for owning one. That is, for me, the decadency of the right to own a gun. Why would anyone want a shotgun?

Usually they want a shotgun because all they have to do is fire it in the general direction of a home invader in close quarters and they are practically guaranteed to hit and stop them.

 

[888]

What context? Three batshit insane people who shouldn't have had weapons in the first place? Because that's the context for me. The fact that people have guns in their home, people like this. I don't trust anyone with a gun by the way. Ever.

The lesson my wife has learned is that Americans have a long way to go still. Control your fucking weapons, and get them out of the hands of ordinary people, is what she says, and has said her whole life.



I would. But I would ask myself why anyone would have a weapon at home anyway. Have one? Been nice knowing ya. Get that shit away from me. I want nothing to do with anyone having a gun at home. Anyone. Don't fucking care what the excuse might be. You have one at home I instantly distrust you and I will instantly block you from my life. So would my wife.

May as well go ahead and block me.

 

[138]

I’m a big advocate against knife crime in London. I’ve been campaigning for a switch to spoons for years now.

 

[cryptoadam]

In this case, the act of acquiring the gun occurred before the act of saying “I am going to kill you”, so it couldn’t have been prevented without some kind of Minority Report pre-cog system. I’m not sure that a blanket banning of all guns would prevent it either because: a) it would create a black market in which they could still acquire the guns illegally and unregulated, and b) it would lead to an increase in other weapon crimes.

I suspect a war on gun ownership would work about as well as the war on drugs. We agree on the desired end result (reduced gun-related deaths) but disagree on the means. You need to address the demand end of the system instead of the supply end, which is what your proposed ban is doing. The fundamental question is therefore: why do Americans want to own guns?

Could it be the gun culture and prevalence of guns is driving the American want for guns? Its not for hunting, and as much as self defense is sighted I don't think thats a real valid reason. How many actual people have had to pull a gun on someone to stop a crime? I imagine its very low. What is very high is probably a lot of people who are a bit brainwashed into thinking they NEED their guns to 1)defend themselves from the abundance of criminals in the US which is actually not true, or 2) to defend themselves from a tyranical government which we all know is a joke.

Maybe there is a 3rd reason, to be a tough guy and for criminal purposes (mass shootings, terror attacks, robberies)?

Outside of that why else would you want a gun? Want it for sports (hunting/sport shooting) then set up designated area's that are strictly monitored. Self defense? Ok 1 small gun slow loading gun with a small clip secured at home. Your a collector? OK you can have as many guns as you want just no ammo and all guns have to have the firing mechanism taken out.

As far him getting a gun before or after, my point is if you go the extreme with gun rights than you have to argue that this guy should have a gun, even though you know he threatens to murder people.

 

[Papa]

Could it be the gun culture and prevalence of guns is driving the American want for guns? Its not for hunting, and as much as self defense is sighted I don't think thats a real valid reason. How many actual people have had to pull a gun on someone to stop a crime? I imagine its very low. What is very high is probably a lot of people who are a bit brainwashed into thinking they NEED their guns to 1)defend themselves from the abundance of criminals in the US which is actually not true, or 2) to defend themselves from a tyranical government which we all know is a joke.

Maybe there is a 3rd reason, to be a tough guy and for criminal purposes (mass shootings, terror attacks, robberies)?

Outside of that why else would you want a gun? Want it for sports (hunting/sport shooting) then set up designated area's that are strictly monitored. Self defense? Ok 1 small gun slow loading gun with a small clip secured at home. Your a collector? OK you can have as many guns as you want just no ammo and all guns have to have the firing mechanism taken out.

As far him getting a gun before or after, my point is if you go the extreme with gun rights than you have to argue that this guy should have a gun, even though you know he threatens to murder people.

I agree that it's cultural. The prevalence of guns is a symptom, not a cause though. So then we need to go deeper and ask why the culture is the way it is, which leads us back to the two main arguments of 2nd amendment proponents:

1. Defense against a tyrannical government.
2. Personal defense.

I don't agree that the defense against a tyrannical government argument is a joke. I used to, but I don't anymore given what is currently happening in Europe, China, and so on. I genuinely believe that something bad is brewing in Europe and I don't quite know where it's going to go. I sense some kind of critical mass forming though, so let's say the Count Dankula scenario and banning of memes are early signs of what is to come in a macrocultural change. What will be banned next and what is to stop the government from fining you, imprisoning you, or worse? Will criticism of the government be criminalised like in China? What is to protect the populace from that other than the threat of violence from an armed militia? If you have a solution, I am totally open to it, because like I have said, I would like a gun-free society if the pros outweigh the cons.

I don't see why you are arguing about going to the extreme with gun rights. I don't think that's what anyone here is doing, and I haven't seen any of the gun owners in this thread opposing regulation of guns for criminals and/or mentally ill people. You may not be aware of it because of the media spin and those Parkland kids, but guns are regulated in the US. It does vary a bit by state, but generally speaking it's not possible to legally acquire a gun if you have a criminal record or known mental illness. Listen to the Colion Noir interview on the Rubin Report if you want to know some facts that you will not have heard from the media: .

I have heard various theories regarding the increase in mass school shootings in the last 20-odd years but the one that makes most sense to me is the over-medication of young boys with drugs like Adderall, etc. The timelines match up too perfectly for it to not at least be a factor. What we are essentially doing is pathologising normal boyish behaviours and inappropriately medicating them as a result, of which increased rates of genuine mental illness may be one of the unintended side effects. If this were indeed the case, then would the solution not be to address the root cause (inappropriate medication) rather than ban the tool used to commit the crime? As far as I can tell, this was the biggest factor in the Nikolas Cruz mass shooting (as well as an unstable family life), not the fact that he had access to a gun. What happens if we do ban all guns but leave the mental illness side unaddressed? Do these kids start showing up to schools with knives instead? What's to stop the kids from illegally acquiring the guns anyway?

I have covered most of this in previous comments in this thread, which people seem to be ignoring for some reason.