Support NeoGAF

[Fenderputty]

If you set the Hispanics and Asians to zero because they've all been deported the GOP does much better.

Ok, I had to almost explain here at work why I was laughing to myself. That's good stuff.

I didn't have to give an explanation, but that's because my righty coworkers wouldn't think what I was laughing at was funny.

 

[FiggyCal]

I also want to add this: Way too many pro-gun people blame the rhetoric of gun control people as the real problem that prevents gun control, as if toning down the anti-gun rhetoric will makes things better. This is one of the worst kinds of victim blaming there is. It's almost exactly the same stuff we saw in Gamergate threads, or police brutality threads, or threads about BLMs. It's a despicable opinion and is something that needs to stop in future threads.

Why is it that so many people are afraid of not having guns in the first place?

 

[speculawyer]

Why is it that so many people are afraid of not having guns in the first place?

I think it is largely because it is a hobby. Imagine being told that all videogames would be banned. Lots of hunters & gun-enthusiasts would be sad to have their toys taken away.

 

[Retromelon]

They must be afraid of not taking advantage of their second amendment rights as bestowed unto them by the founders and the constitution

 

[User1608]

WELP

LOL. At least we have some dignity unlike the people at Fox News soooo.

 

[RastaMentality]

Hillary's statement on the shooting and gun control overall - https://amp.twimg.com/v/045a3ef2-c2bd-43b9-bac7-384f38677d3c

 

[User 406]

I think it is largely because it is a hobby. Imagine being told that all videogames would be banned. Lots of hunters & gun-enthusiasts would be sad to have their toys taken away.

No, it's because they're scared. Decades of crime fearmongering, primarily of the racial kind, has led to a preposterously high level of paranoia among the general populace. Many people feel like their lives are in terrible danger all the time from armed criminals and only a gun will protect them from it.

 

[Fenderputty]

No, it's because they're scared. Decades of crime fearmongering, primarily of the racial kind, has led to a preposterously high level of paranoia among the general populace. Many people feel like their lives are in terrible danger all the time from armed criminals and only a gun will protect them from it.

Probably a mix of the two. For myself and other gun owners I know, it comes down to personal freedoms and the enjoyment of a hobby surrounding a gun. Whether that be target shooting, hunting or collecting. There are probably quite a few paranoid gun owners who have bought into some irrational fear though.

 

[KingGondo]

Probably a mix of the two. For myself and other gun owners I know, it comes down to personal freedoms and the enjoyment of a hobby surrounding a gun. Whether that be target shooting, hunting or collecting. There are probably quite a few paranoid gun owners who have bought into some irrational fear though.

I totally get the appeal of guns. I mean, I'm a gamer who was raised on Doom and Goldeneye.

And if hunting, range shooting, or even collecting are the rationale for owning a gun, I think it should be allowed. I also think the background checks should be stringent and the liability for misuse/carelessness should be high.

 

[Coriolanus]

It can be many factors, be it fear, hobbyism, power trips, or just getting a throbbing erection when fantasizing about killing one of them darkies, like, say, zimmerman.

If memory serves, the stats on gun violence almost always side with restricting pistols over assault rifles and other long weapons.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Look what i found on amazon while i was trying in vain to download sonic cd

In case i shrunk that image too badly, the author is one 'Mario Broes'

Robert Shaw was unhappy with his purchase

"This guy is biased against Ted Cruz!

btw I support Ted Cruz"

 

[Metaphoreus]

another day, another tragedy, another failed gun control "debate"

I still want some critique on my argument re: why illegal possession of firearms and narcotics is different, though: anyone care to take a crack at it?

"Illegal possession of a firearm and illegal possession of narcotics are two very different situations despite them both involving illegal possession. The difference is that in the case of narcotics, most people prosecuted for possessing narcotics intended to use them for a high - illegal, but not going to intentionally cause harm to someone else. There is also the case of being able to plant trace amounts of drug residue on people to indict them as an excuse to arrest - it is more difficult to plant an illegal gun on someone and easier to trace where that gun came from if the indicted maintains their stance that the gun was planted. A person illegally possessing a gun has been barred from legally possessing a gun: if they weren't, why are they illegally possessing a dangerous firearm as opposed to a legal one? It makes no sense for a person to acquire a gun illegally when they have the legal option open, and if someone for whatever reason decides to acquire their gun illegally as opposed to the legal option they should be prosecuted. Most likely, a person who as acquired their gun illegally has been barred from having a gun for public safety, also likely is that if a person for whom it has been determined that gun ownership would be a threat to public safety has a gun, then they are going to be a threat to public safety using said gun. After all, if you are not going to commit a crime or endanger the public, why get your gun illegally when there is a legal avenue open to you? I see no reason why a person who has their gun illegally is not a credible threat to public safety. I see no reason why someone who can acquire a gun legally would need to acquire their gun illegally. Therefore we can extrapolate that in general, a person who is illegally possessing a gun either is banned from legally owning a gun or intends to do something criminal or nefarious with it.

Someone smoking weed is not a threat to public safety: driving under the influence and selling it to minors is and should be banned, but mere possession does not endanger the public. I think the difference here is that all illegal narcotics are illegal (they are demonstrably illegal because people caught possessing them go to jail) but not all guns are illegal, so a person illegally possessing a gun has clearly either been barred from possessing a gun legally or has suspicious motives for why they are acquiring their gun illegally."

I feel like my explanation meanders and is a bit repetitive, but I think the logic holds up.

It's a weird argument. The basic argument should be that guns pose more of a risk to others than do narcotics, therefore those others (i.e., society in general) have more of an interest in prohibiting the former than the latter. The rest is unnecessary and wrong. A person (even one who poses no threat to him or herself or others) might illegally obtain a gun if, for instance, it's cheaper than obtaining one through the proper channels. There's nothing inherently blameworthy in that motive (aside from its illegality, I mean). And a person for whom possession is illegal in all instances may nevertheless possess one because he or she believes it necessary or useful for purposes of self-defense. So the inferences you draw aren't justified.

 

[Fenderputty]

I totally get the appeal of guns. I mean, I'm a gamer who was raised on Doom and Goldeneye.

And if hunting, range shooting, or even collecting are the rationale for owning a gun, I think it should be allowed. I also think the background checks should be stringent and the liability for misuse/carelessness should be high.

I agree. I also am for massive limitation on clip sizes and mechanism that slows the reloading of clips. Nobody's hobby is being meaningfully impacted by such measures. This includes handguns, which by and large, are the most common weapon used in a human death.

If memory serves, the stats on gun violence almost always side with restricting pistols over assault rifles and other long weapons.

You would be correct.

 

[ivysaur12]

Jeb/Rubio: Improve into 2004 W margins

Walker: Run the score among white votes

Hmm, I put in the data from 2004 and the Dem would win Colorado, but lose New Mexico. How odd.

 

[Black Mamba]

On an August day two years ago, Donald Trump was in a much different place: He was just a billionaire with the simple goal of connecting his beauty pageant business with the upcoming Hispanic Heritage Awards.

So at his New York penthouse office atop Trump Tower, he convened a meeting.
Trump ushered in a pair of men — one to talk about the awards and a Democratic strategist who works with nonprofits — and three young DREAMer activists. The DREAMers were on a tour sharing their stories with those less likely to support them, like Tea Party supporters.

Trump, according to four attendees who recounted the meeting to BuzzFeed News, talked about how rich he is (“This is the best view in New York!”), the golf courses he was building around the world, and about each prospective Republican candidate (“What do you think about Jeb Bush?”) and whether Latinos liked them.

Then the DREAMers began telling their life stories.

But he also kept asking, “Can’t you just become a citizen if you want to?” No, we can’t, the activists said, there’s no process for that. Trump was reflective, the activists said.

“You know, the truth is I have a lot of illegals working for me in Miami,” he told them, using the term for undocumented immigrants those in the meeting found offensive. “You know in Miami, my golf course is tended by all these Hispanics — if it wasn’t for them my lawn wouldn’t be the lawn it is, it’s the best lawn,” Pacheco recalled Trump saying.
Trump said he knew the work of undocumented people is what makes his golf courses and hotels great.

“At the end of the day, what we’re looking at is a value proposition for America,” Tijerino said to Trump at the end of the meeting, referring to immigration legislation.

“You’ve convinced me,” Trump said to the delight of the activists in the room.

“We all smiled at each other and said, ‘Wow, we did it, we got this guy to change his mind,’” Pacheco said.

Trump declared that they could have whatever they wanted for free.

He gave away a watch, and his daughter’s book. He gave away chocolate. Pacheco scored a perfume, the guys got a bunch of Donald Trump ties.

“Everything said, ‘Made in China,’” Pacheco said.

Sanchez, who is 25 and now in law school, cracked up when asked about the ties. He said he was literally wearing one of the three Trump gave him that day.

“Considering what he told us, it’s a complete 360, all he’s doing now is spewing hate,” Sanchez said. “He’s digging himself in a hole even more. He was nice then but now he wants to kick us out of the country.”

Rodriguez, who took a tie and gave it to his dad, said this is what should upset Trump’s supporters: They’re just being used by a showman who knows what to say depending on who he’s talking to.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarra...ers-and-said?utm_term=.vvnVZYDVjR#.tj0bJOXxY8

 

[speculawyer]

No, it's because they're scared. Decades of crime fearmongering, primarily of the racial kind, has led to a preposterously high level of paranoia among the general populace. Many people feel like their lives are in terrible danger all the time from armed criminals and only a gun will protect them from it.

Well that would just be pathetic. Statistically, crime is way down. But even if we assumed that their fears were justified, they would be safer if all those boogiemen that they fear did not have guns. Stupid.

 

[Coriolanus]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarra...ers-and-said?utm_term=.vvnVZYDVjR#.tj0bJOXxY8

Fits nicely with the profile Scott Adams did on The Don.

Well that would just be pathetic. Statistically, crime is way down. But even if we assumed that their fears were justified, they would be safer if all those boogiemen that they fear did not have guns. Stupid.

You talking about dudes that have been keeping the bullet market drained for nearly 8 straight years now, all out of some remote fear that the black man in charge might come for their guns, and who then proceed to think that the bullet shortage is happening not because they're buying everything, but because the mooslem in charge is using his subtle ways to curtail bullet production.

 

[sangreal]

a complete 360 indeed

 

[Fenderputty]

You talking about dudes that have been keeping the bullet market drained for nearly 8 straight years now, all out of some remote fear that the black man in charge might come for their guns, and who then proceed to think that the bullet shortage is happening not because they're buying everything, but because the mooslem in charge is using his subtle ways to curtail bullet production.

What's odd about this is that it's .22 caliber ammo that's hardest to find. I've got a 1890's pump .22 rifle I can't shoot because of it.

 

[Joey Fox]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarra...ers-and-said?utm_term=.vvnVZYDVjR#.tj0bJOXxY8

My theory is that after winning the nomination, Trump will offer a road to citizenship for the illegal immigrants that haven't committed violent crimes. He'll "make a deal" to get in the White House.

 

[Fenderputty]

My theory is that after winning the nomination, Trump will offer a road to citizenship for the illegal immigrants that haven't committed violent crimes. He'll "make a deal" to get in the White House.

How the hell can he do that with the rhetoric he's been running on? Talk about a way to demotivate his base supporter by going estaishment. I doubt a move like that would sway the latino vote anyway

 

[Officerrob]

My theory is that after winning the nomination, Trump will offer a road to citizenship for the illegal immigrants that haven't committed violent crimes. He'll "make a deal" to get in the White House.

There's moving to the center, and then there's flipping off your base. No way Trump could do that

 

[B-Dubs]

There's moving to the center, and then there's flipping off your base. No way Trump could do that

Like they would even notice.

 

[Coriolanus]

How the hell can he do that with the rhetoric he's been running on? Talk about a way to demotivate his base supporter by going estaishment. I doubt a move like that would sway the latino vote anyway

Fuck else will the rabid racists do, vote democrat? He'll sell it to his base by saying that he'll go hard after the rapists. Is doable. Heck, is necessary.

 

[User1608]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarra...ers-and-said?utm_term=.vvnVZYDVjR#.tj0bJOXxY8

Holy crap, I'll laugh if it comes out he played his audience like a fiddle. Perhaps I'm giving him too much credit, though.

 

[Joey Fox]

How the hell can he do that with the rhetoric he's been running on? Talk about a way to demotivate his base supporter by going estaishment. I doubt a move like that would sway the latino vote anyway

Is that establishment? I have no idea what you're talking about. If you see things from the perspective of those who think politics is a joke it can make sense. Part of Trump's rhetoric includes using leverage and being flexible.

Would it sway Latinos if he negotiated it with Jorge Ramos and got his endorsement?

 

[speculawyer]

You talking about dudes that have been keeping the bullet market drained for nearly 8 straight years now, all out of some remote fear that the black man in charge might come for their guns, and who then proceed to think that the bullet shortage is happening not because they're buying everything, but because the mooslem in charge is using his subtle ways to curtail bullet production.

Yep. Obama has been the best thing ever to happen to the gun industry.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Yep. Obama has been the best thing ever to happen to the gun industry.

I assume Hillary's would also spike gun sale? " That insert derogatory words of choice that applies to a woman is trying to take away your guns."

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Probably a mix of the two. For myself and other gun owners I know, it comes down to personal freedoms and the enjoyment of a hobby surrounding a gun. Whether that be target shooting, hunting or collecting. There are probably quite a few paranoid gun owners who have bought into some irrational fear though.

How does limiting guns restrict freedom? Is europe less free because its not a right to own a gun? Are we less free because you can't own a tank, a bazooka? Machine guns? bombs? etc?

No of course not. Why is it freeing to own a handgun?

A hobby isn't a good reason to say we should keep something legal. It would be fun to burn things, fire is cool! You can be a responsible arsonist. But we make it a crime because its dangerous and not useful. We're not less free because of that. If video games caused thousands of deaths and had no other purpose besides killing or seriously harming someone, by all means ban the hell out of them

 

[Fenderputty]

Fuck else will the rabid racists do, vote democrat? He'll sell it to his base by saying that he'll go hard after the rapists. Is doable. Heck, is necessary.

Stay home? Would he gain more latino votes than demotivate the racists he's popular with?

How does limiting guns restrict freedom? Is europe less free because its not a right to own a gun? Are we less free because you can't own a tank, a bazooka? Machine guns? bombs? etc?

No of course not. Why is it freeing to own a handgun?

Are we really going to get into semanticall arguments about freedom?

 

[Metaphoreus]

How does limiting guns restrict freedom? Is europe less free because its not a right to own a gun? Are we less free because you can't own a tank, a bazooka? Machine guns? bombs? etc?

No of course not. Why is it freeing to own a handgun?

Limiting a person's legal ability to do something he or she is otherwise capable of doing is, by definition, limiting that person's freedom. How could you think otherwise? People who favor gun control aren't going to convince anyone with semantic arguments centered on redefining what freedom entails; they need to persuade their opponents that their preferred limitation on freedom is justified.

EDIT:

Are we really going to get into semanticall arguments about freedom?

It's like a signal in the clouds for me.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Are we really going to get into semanticall arguments about freedom?

This isn't semantic, how do the ability to own guns increase freedom?

I'm just trying to point out that nobody says we're less free because we limit things, but when it guns its now a liberty we're infringing on. Who gave you the right to own a gun?

Limiting a person's legal ability to do something he or she is otherwise capable of doing is, by definition, limiting that person's freedom. How could you think otherwise? People who favor gun control aren't going to convince anyone with semantic arguments centered on redefining what freedom entails; they need to persuade their opponents that their preferred limitation on freedom is justified.

she is only capable because of a law. Since other nations never had the legal ability to own guns are they not less free?

Again, is europe less free because they can't own guns? This just further solidifies my argument there aren't justifiable reasons for guns being as legal as they are in the US, it rests on the fact we never limited them so inertia and the status quo lead us here. Its just like health care

 

[Retromelon]

Because...without the ability to own guns you aren't able to own something anymore? That is a pretty clear limit on a freedom if you ask me

 

[Coriolanus]

Stay home? Would he gain more latino votes than demotivate the racists he's popular with?

And now you factor that it ain't republicans who have problems getting their voter base to the polls.

I'm just trying to point out that nobody says we're less free because we limit things, but when it guns its now a liberty we're infringing on. Who gave you the right to own a gun?

This is wildly incorrect.

Also, as with all rights, the default stance in law is that you are permitted to do anything that the law doesn't explicitly prohibits or limits. (unless we talking administrative law, in which case it's the reverse)

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Because...without the ability to own guns you aren't able to own something anymore? That is a pretty clear limit on a freedom if you ask me

Why is limiting guns limiting freedom, but not limited lead in paint.

I understand in some literal way it is. Any kind of limit is "restricting freedom" (this is aburd in the philosophical level because there will always be limits state or no state, but I won't get into that).

We all accept safety regulations as non-freedom interfering, in fact sometimes freedom enhancing but getting rid of guns provokes the opposite reaction, whats the difference? Why are guns ok, but not machine guns?

 

[Mario]

This isn't semantic, how do the ability to own guns increase freedom?

I'm just trying to point out that nobody says we're less free because we limit things, but when it guns its now a liberty we're infringing on. Who gave you the right to own a gun?



she is only capable because of a law. Since other nations never had the legal ability to own guns are they not less free?

Again, is europe less free because they can't own guns? This just further solidifies my argument there aren't justifiable reasons for guns being as legal as they are in the US, it rests on the fact we never limited them so inertia and the status quo lead us here. Its just like health care

It probably doesn't help that "freedom" is an often thrown around, over-used, amorphous word to help demonize anything the government or foreign powers might do which tries to move the argument to a "not what the country was founded on" position.

Everything from mandatory labeling on foods, to gun licensing, to emissions controls, to taxes, to trade agreements, to UN participation, to environmental protections has been labeled an "assault on freedom" at some point.

"You want me to have a hunting license? Are you for America or against it?"

 

[HyperionX]

Stay home? Would he gain more latino votes than demotivate the racists he's popular with?



Are we really going to get into semanticall arguments about freedom?

Limiting a person's legal ability to do something he or she is otherwise capable of doing is, by definition, limiting that person's freedom. How could you think otherwise? People who favor gun control aren't going to convince anyone with semantic arguments centered on redefining what freedom entails; they need to persuade their opponents that their preferred limitation on freedom is justified.

EDIT:



It's like a signal in the clouds for me.

You guys are arguing towards a libertarian understanding of freedom; one that which can easily destroys other people freedom. This is not something most people would consider a real freedom.

 

[Metaphoreus]

she is only capable because of a law. Since other nations never had the legal ability to own guns are they not less free?

Again, is europe less free because they can't own guns? This just further solidifies my argument there aren't justifiable reasons for guns being as legal as they are in the US, it rests on the fact we never limited them so inertia and the status quo lead us here. Its just like health care

If our starting point for determining the extent of freedom is what is legal, then yeah, no law can ever restrict freedom. But that's a bad starting point. Here's a better one: A person can physically possess and use a gun without there being a law permitting it. When the law prohibits that person from doing what he or she is physically capable of doing, it restricts his or her freedom.

On that second, better view, yes, Europeans are less free because they can't own guns.

Your lead-paint analogy works the same way. Restricting how much lead can be sold in paint limits the freedom of paint manufacturers and sellers. But we've concluded that those limits are justified because of countervailing interests.

You guys are arguing towards a libertarian understanding of freedom; one that which can easily destroys other people freedom. This is not something most people would consider a real freedom.

Explain the second clause of your first sentence and prove your second sentence, please.

 

[Retromelon]

People like guns
Nobody likes lead paint

 

[NYCmetsfan]

If our starting point for determining the extent of freedom is what is legal, then yeah, no law can ever restrict freedom. But that's a bad starting point. Here's a better one: A person can physically possess and use a gun without there being a law permitting it. When the law prohibits that person from doing what he or she is physically capable of doing, it restricts his or her freedom.

On that second, better view, yes, Europeans are less free because they can't own guns.

Your lead-paint analogy works the same way. Restricting how much lead can be sold in paint limits the freedom of paint manufacturers and sellers. But we've concluded that those limits are justified because of countervailing interests.



Explain the second clause of your first sentence and prove your second sentence, please.

Murder is freedom limiting!

Your lead-paint analogy works the same way. Restricting how much lead can be sold in paint limits the freedom of paint manufacturers and sellers. But we've concluded that those limits are justified because of countervailing interests.

Ok, so preventing deaths isn't a good interest? Hobbies and collecting outweighs lives. That's what it boils down.

People like guns
Nobody likes lead paint

This is what's frustrating, this is the reason why we let people die. People like guns and love them more than people not dying. Lives would be saved if we severely limited guns, and what do you lose? A fun activity over a weekend?

 

[Fenderputty]

We all accept safety regulations as non-freedom interfering, in fact sometimes freedom enhancing but getting rid of guns provokes the opposite reaction, whats the difference? Why are guns ok, but not machine guns?

Regulating isn't outright banning. One is a limit on a freedom the other is the removal.

The vast majority of gun owners aren't harming anyone. The vast majority are fine with limits being placed on their freedom. They just don't want it removed.

And now you factor that it ain't republicans who have problems getting their voter base to the polls.

Hmm, maybe. I just don't see that position swaying Latinos after the shit he's been slinging

 

[NeoXChaos]

Murder is freedom limiting!



Ok, so preventing deaths isn't a good interest? Hobbies and collecting outweighs lives. That's what it boils down.

Lives would be saved if we severely limited guns

Pretty much. Has been that way since 1776. I am sure you are not the only who has said that since 1776 and you will not be the last.

 

[HyperionX]

Explain the second clause of your first comment and prove your second sentence, please.

I'm not playing your game of sophistry. As others have said in this thread, your position is absurd on the face of it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Regulating isn't outright banning. One is a limit on a freedom the other is the removal.

The vast majority of gun owners aren't harming anyone. The vast majority are fine with limits being placed on their freedom. They just don't want it removed.

This is a stupid argument. Too many do. This doesn't change the imputus for regulation or limitations. "Most people" or "Most anything" don't do anything wrong. We still limit things that a lot of people do do to that cause harm!

I'd be fine with someone owning guns if you have to affirmatively prove you are responsible and have a reason (not collecting). Not the assumption that you are and you have to lose it. There's no reason to have it go the other way its insane.

Everybody is a responsible gun owner, until their not. Its not even a description of quality its a kind of truism

 

[RustyNails]

"This guy is biased against Ted Cruz!

btw I support Ted Cruz"

To be fair the reviewer is also probably the author.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Murder is freedom limiting!

I don't disagree.

Ok, so preventing deaths isn't a good interest? Hobbies and collecting outweighs lives. That's what it boils down.

"I like shooting" isn't the only justification for respecting the right to own guns, but you're missing my point. Your argument was that limiting the right to have guns was not a limit on freedom. My point is that it is, and that you need to show that it's a justified limit, not merely word-play your way around depriving people of their rights.

I'm not playing your game of sophistry. As others have said in this thread, your position is absurd on the face of it.

I'll take that as a withdrawal of the statements.

Pretty much. Has been that way since 1776. I am sure you are not the only who has said that since 1776 and you will not be the last.

1791.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Pretty much. Has been that way since 1776. I am sure you are not the only who has said that since 1776 and you will not be the last.

It's just so defeating. Its sad. Like I sad its made the outrage after every shooting so empty

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

It's just so weird that guns are legal in a country where so many drugs are banned.

 

[Fenderputty]

This is a stupid argument. Too many do. This doesn't change the imputus for regulation or limitations. "Most people" or "Most anything" don't do anything wrong. We still limit things that a lot of people do do to that cause harm!

I'd be fine with someone owning guns if you have to affirmatively prove you are responsible and have a reason (not collecting). Not the assumption that you are and you have to lose it. There's no reason to have it go the other way its insane.

Everybody is a responsible gun owner, until their not. Its not even a description of quality its a kind of truism

You keep bringing up regulations and limitations which are limits on a freedom and not the removal. I've not argued that limits shouldn't be placed

If one in three Americans owns a gun then there's 100 million gun owners in the U.S. It isn't stupid at all to say "vast majority"

It's just so weird that guns are legal in a country where so many drugs are banned.

Those should be a legal personal freedom too

 

[NYCmetsfan]

"I like shooting" isn't the only justification for respecting the right to own guns, but you're missing my point. Your argument was that limiting the right to have guns was not a limit on freedom. My point is that it is, and that you need to show that it's a justified limit, not merely word-play your way around depriving people of their rights.

.

You literally ignore everything in my post to play your games.

There's a justified limit. Its sole purpose is to kill and maim. They are a weapon, you can't use them to cook (don't post that stupid cruz video), you can't build anything with them, they are weapons. They kill so many people and there's really not is any statistical proof they "save lives" (a bazooka could theoretical save lives in an anecdote)

The only justifiable reason is hunting. Which I'm fine with if they prove they are responsible.

This is the standard in most other countries on earth. Its reasonable. Its fair. It saves lives.

But no, guns are fun to shoot things and people have batman fantasies. So we have to live with days like this.