13 wrote

Extorted wrote Guns are not shooting people, people are.

Shoot someone with out a gun then.

Extorted wrote having gun laws here will do close to nothing.

So there should be NO gun laws is what you're saying? Also, where are you getting the information from that stricter gun laws would "do close to nothing", because every other country that has put stricter gun laws in to practice has seen a drastic decrease in gun crime and mass shootings come to an end almost.

Extorted wrote Criminals don't follow rules, that's why they are "criminals".

Okay? Moot point. It has nothing to do with anything I said, or the discussion at hand.

Extoreted wrote Therefor a gun law isn't going to stop a criminal from obtaining a gun illegally to go shoot up a place.

"a gun law". You're aware you already have laws on guns, right? People are just advocating for stricter gun laws, to make them harder to obtain, which would absolutely make it harder for a criminal to get one. Sort of like how criminals in countries with strict gun laws almost never use guns. Weird how that works, huh?

I realize we have guns laws already. ofc we do.

And what I mean is people who have guns are shooting people. The gun doesnt shoot them by itself.

Not everyone goes around murdering people ofc.

Having even stricter gun laws here isnt going to do anything, that's just America.

There are millions of illegal weapons here in the US, if a criminal wants one he will get one regardless of the law.

Same with drugs, there sure are laws that prohibit them, but people still get them.

13 wrote There is almost a mass shooting each day in America if you look at the numbers. Now compare that to gun crime elsewhere, shall we? One in the UK. A SINGLE mass shooting in the UK, and that's in the past 2 decades. Want to guess the number for Australia? 2. 2 mass shootings in 2 decades.

Wow, weird that isn't it? Gun crime plummeted after gun laws became more strict and mass shootings pretty much ended. Its almost as if the less guns there are, and the harder they are to get, the less gun crime there is? Weird.

As for illegal guns, irrelevant. You can get illegal guns anywhere. The issue with gun control in the US, is that there is no control. Its way too easy to obtain a gun in the US, legally or illegally.

The amount of people I've seen get butthurt that people are trying to 'take their guns' and state that "guns don't kill people, people do" that then go on to say shit like "praying for Vegas" is ridiculous. So **** the whole thing then? Guns shouldn't be taken away to stop mass shooting, we'll all just pray to the sky daddy for help. Guess what, prayers don't help people, people do. God doesn't help people, people do.

Oh and no one is trying to take your guns. There's no big conspiracy that you're all going to lose your guns and then get bent over by your government. That's just moronic.

How ANYONE can be against strict gun laws to me is just nonsensical.

---

inb4butthurtrednecks

I think it falls in line with people do assume stricter gun laws = a ban on guns, at the very least a blanket ban. I'll use California as an example since they apparently have one of the strictest gun laws in the states. Some examples are guns can not hold more than 10 rounds, be that an assault rifle or a pistol. All guns that use a magazine need to use a tool to detach them. So you can't use the magazine release with just your thumb, you need a tool that is normally like a screw size your put in to release or you twist then push down to release (I'm sure there's other variants out there.) Open carry has always seemed iffy when I asked. I've been told it's a flat out no, while some said you can in an area with less than 200,000 residents, others have told me it's just too much of a hassle from waiting time and expenses to get the permit for it, so I don't know the definite answer for open carry in California. There's other gun laws I just don't want to touch all of them right now.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I had only seen this on Reddit, but apparently there is a bill being signed or has been signed that Obama-era gun checks is being revoked. I believe that fell in line where background checks on a person's mental status is just thrown out the window now. That alone is it's own problem if that is true. Plus there are some gun shows with private sellers where you can just buy a gun there and the seller won't even do a background check or will simply half-ass it and boom, you're walking out of the show with a gun. Going onto the actual check itself, I've heard that in California, they look at police reports of only 7 years instead of a life time. If that's true, I also feel like that is an issue in it's own hand. A person could have been arrested in the 80's for murdering someone, got out in like 2005, tried to buy a gun in 2017 and if the police background check is only going back 7 years, this person is getting a gun.

Going back to basing on parts of the world with their gun violence, I think people need to also account for the fact that America has a lot of gang violence which easily accounts for the killings with a firearm. I'm not talking about mass shootings at this point, but violence with a firearm in general. America has a gang problem and it shows promptly in certain states and/or counties within those states. Chicago is probably one of the most known that fall into this category.



I'm not sure how accurate this site is, but based on the past 4 days in Chicago there have been 7 murders, all with a shooting. I am easily going to guess that 5 out of those 7 shootings were gang related or even possibly drug related, which, can be thrown back into gang related if it fell into the category of someone not paying for the drugs from a gang or tried to rip them off or whatever. Either way, gang violence has a lot to do with the amount of people killed by a firearm.

While I do agree gun laws need to be stricter - in the form of having a thorough background check on the people buying it and not letting private dealers sell without a background check at gun shows, it's not going to solve the problem completely. Someone who wants to commit a crime is going to do it, even if they have to go out of their way to get it. In a completely extreme scenario, guns could be completely banned in America except for police, national guard, secret service, ect but there still would be shootings and there still would be mass murders. As I said before, the gang problem in America is an actual problem. They'll still have the guns, they'll still have access to get guns and if someone wants to go shoot up a school and has the contact, nothing is really stopping that person unless some sort of authority is hounding in on their activities and can stop them before it happens.

Of course you have the people who are just careless with a gun, leaving them around in reach of children, people who will just shoot someone for spitting on their shoes, people who will shoot their gun randomly in the air and any other sort of mishandling but you can't fix stupid and/or people raging, they shouldn't own a gun in the first place. Even with stricter gun laws in the form of a more thorough background check and stopping private sellers from selling as freely as some do, I hardly believe it will make a dent in the problem that happens within America. There have been shootings in the past where the weapons were stolen or borrowed from a rightful gun owner, Sandy Hook for example, the shooter took his mother or father's guns and went on his shooting spree. In the end, it falls into a few categories. Stupid people, gang violence and people who simply want to kill. Can't fix stupid at all, can make it harder but stupid people will always find a way to harm themselves or others. Gang problem is something that will never go away, they've been trying for what, years? People who just want to kill will always find their own way to kill, gun makes it easier, sure, but so does a car, a bomb, ect. I don't know, at this point I don't think anything can be fixed, even if in the extreme scenario guns were to outright be banned.

Extorted wrote And what I mean is people who have guns are shooting people. The gun doesnt shoot them by itself.

Yeah, and it's still a moot point. Stricter gun laws = less guns, try shooting someone when you can't get a hold of a gun. Obviously a gun can't shoot itself but a person can't shoot someone without a gun. That's like saying "oh well, cars aren't the reason there are collisions, it's the people driving".

Extorted wrote Having even stricter gun laws here isnt going to do anything, that's just America.

This literally isn't even a point/argument. It doesn't even make sense. Of course stricter gun laws would reduce gun crime. It's always the "but Murica, we different" whenever someone mentions the UK and it's strict gun laws. Well, okay, look at any other country that decided to make guns harder to obtain, gun crimes decrease and mass shootings significantly decrease. It's just a fact. The only thing stricter gun laws are going to do, is take more guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't own them, not people who have a legitimate reason for a weapon. How you can be against that is just beyond me. It's illogical.

Extorted wrote There are millions of illegal weapons here in the US, if a criminal wants one he will get one regardless of the law.

So gun laws are just fine the way they are because who cares, surely a criminal could get a gun anyway if he really wanted? Let's just not make it harder at all, because who cares. Guess what, it was pretty common at one time in the UK for criminals to use guns, not any more. Want to know why? Stricter gun laws. Sure, SOME people can still get a hold of guns illegally, but that doesn't mean that just having ridiculously loose gun laws wouldn't make a difference? Of course it makes a difference.

Extorted wrote Same with drugs, there sure are laws that prohibit them, but people still get them.

Yeah, and if it was legalised and regulated, you know, with the proper laws, it would be harder for anyone to abuse these substances, or die from them. Again, weird how that works?

TaigaAisaka wrote it's not going to solve the problem completely

and this is exactly the problem I have with a lot of Americans. They think that just because gun crime(or even crime in general) won;t just completely stop with stricter gun laws, that it's irrelevant in the first place(not saying you think this way, of course). A lot of people will just think "oh well, no point making gun laws stricter since there's still gonna be crime anyway". It's moronic.

TaigaAisaka wrote Someone who wants to commit a crime is going to do it, even if they have to go out of their way to get it. In a completely extreme scenario, guns could be completely banned in America except for police, national guard, secret service, ect but there still would be shootings and there still would be mass murders. As I said before, the gang problem in America is an actual problem. They'll still have the guns, they'll still have access to get guns and if someone wants to go shoot up a school and has the contact, nothing is really stopping that person unless some sort of authority is hounding in on their activities and can stop them before it happens.

I agree, for the most part, but making gun laws stricter will absolutely make it harder for criminals to obtain guns, that's the entire idea behind strict gun laws. It's the reason they exist. No one is taking guns away from people who are capable of owning them, so why should those people worry about having stricter gun laws? They shouldn't. It's like how if someone in the UK really wants a gun, they'll get one, but it's not worth the hassle of getting an illegal gun here, it's nowhere near as easy as in America, or even as easy as it used to be in the UK.

TaigaAisaka wrote I hardly believe it will make a dent in the problem that happens within America.

and here's my biggest problem. So what? I mean, all the evidence points towards a decrease in gun crime if stricter gun laws were put in place, but even if crime stayed the same, so what? What exactly is the downside of stricter gun laws if gun crime did remain exactly the same? The people who are capable of owning guns, will still own their guns.

13 wrote There is almost a mass shooting each day in America if you look at the numbers. Now compare that to gun crime elsewhere, shall we? One in the UK. A SINGLE mass shooting in the UK, and that's in the past 2 decades. Want to guess the number for Australia? 2. 2 mass shootings in 2 decades.

Wow, weird that isn't it? Gun crime plummeted after gun laws became more strict and mass shootings pretty much ended. Its almost as if the less guns there are, and the harder they are to get, the less gun crime there is? Weird.

As for illegal guns, irrelevant. You can get illegal guns anywhere. The issue with gun control in the US, is that there is no control. Its way too easy to obtain a gun in the US, legally or illegally.

The amount of people I've seen get butthurt that people are trying to 'take their guns' and state that "guns don't kill people, people do" that then go on to say shit like "praying for Vegas" is ridiculous. So **** the whole thing then? Guns shouldn't be taken away to stop mass shooting, we'll all just pray to the sky daddy for help. Guess what, prayers don't help people, people do. God doesn't help people, people do.

Oh and no one is trying to take your guns. There's no big conspiracy that you're all going to lose your guns and then get bent over by your government. That's just moronic.

How ANYONE can be against strict gun laws to me is just nonsensical.

---

inb4butthurtrednecks

---

*edit*
Oh, and stop confusing people wanting some decent gun control as people thinking guns should all be destroyed. There's a huge difference between the two.
Also don't be offended if you own a gun, as long as you've gone through the proper background checks etc, I'm all good with you having a gun.

Crime is also lower in those countries as well as the population. Also, have you ever heard of the District of Columbia v. Heller case? The government has attacked the 2nd amendment before. You say there is no control? That makes no sense... please imply how you would make control. We are close to Mexico, illegal guns flood into our country through the border. No matter if we have stricter gun laws, people with the intentions will still obtain a gun with ease. As for your reference to prayers, it was unnecessary. No need to put down peoples religion because you believe differently.

Thanks for the downvote 13 <3. Effective criticism.

TastyCashews wrote Crime is also lower in those countries as well as the population.

No, no. Ignore population. It's irrelevant really. Compare gun crime by ratio between the UK and the US. Or Australia and the US. Or insert blank here and the US. The US has more gun crime, period.

TastyCashews wrote Also, have you ever heard of the District of Columbia v. Heller case?

Can't say I have. Why don't you enlighten me on what it has to do with gun control exactly. And no, not "dey took our gurns"(or 'tried' to). I'm not talking about taking people's guns away. I'm talking about making guns harder to get, like they should be. Sort of similar to how you need to sit several tests and do lessons before you're allowed to get behind the wheel of a car.

TastyCashews wrote You say there is no control? That makes no sense...

No, it makes sense. The ridiculous amount of proof everywhere of people buying guns with no background checks, etc, or even children getting guns is enough to show that there's no control of guns in the US.

TastyCashews wrote please imply how you would make control

Super easy. Properly regulate guns.

TastyCashews wrote We are close to Mexico

nice meme

TastyCashews wrote No matter if we have stricter gun laws, people with the intentions will still obtain a gun with ease.

Except no. When guns are harder to obtain, they're harder for everyone to obtain. With strict gun laws, law abiding citizens will still have their guns, but criminals will now have to go elsewhere, try something else. Of course some criminals will still be able to obtain guns and/or commit crimes, but that's not a good enough reason to make gun laws stricter.

Example - Let's say drunk driving isn't illegal. There's plenty of people on the roads, drunk, doing damage to their community, costing the Government money, and killing innocent people. All of a sudden it's illegal. Sure, people are still going to drive drunk. Does that mean the amount of accidents remain the same? Not even remotely. A significant amount of people would stop drink driving, and a SIGNIFICANT amount of lives would be saved.

TastyCashews wrote As for your reference to prayers, it was unnecessary.

Unfortunately not considering a lot of people seem to think prayers help more than actually helping.

TastyCashews wrote No need to put down peoples religion because you believe differently.

I never "put down peoples religion".

TastyCashews wrote
Thanks for the downvote 13 <3. Effective criticism.

Ironic considering you literally went and downvoted my post as soon as you seen that I done it to you. It's almost as if I thought you're post wasn't useful, huh?
**Edit #2** Oh no, actually you didn't just go and downvote a single post, you complained about me downvoting your post and then went and downvoted ALL of my posts in return lmfao. Don't be a hypocrite dude.

I definitely agree that the background check needs to be more stricter and more thorough for obtaining a gun, no more loopholes like I mentioned with some gun shows and with what I was told about California's apparent "7 year only police background check." I too agree that rightful gun owners won't have to worry as they'll keep what they have and people who are trying to obtain a gun with no wrongful intentions or who are mentally stable have nothing to worry about with a stricter and more thorough process of obtaining one. Going back to actually imposing a stricter process, I really just believe that some people literally think that imposing stricter gun laws is going to be the end all of violence in America, just as some people believe imposing stricter gun laws think it's going to be the end all of their American right to own a firearm. I personally don't think it will fix anything simply off the fact that people are going to do what they want to do, be that with a firearm or without. Is it worth implementing a more thorough background check system/practice? Absolutely. If I was an FFL dealer and in some scenario I was given the choice that I had to sell a gun to either a person who got arrested for smoking pot when they were 15 or sell a gun to a person who is a known Schizophrenic (in this scenario I am legally allowed to sell to either,) I'm going with the munchy-junky boi; however, if I didn't know that person was a Schizophrenic, I would have chosen them and that person could end up having a mental snap one day and now they own a firearm.

Just people on both ends seem to go to the far extremes of it. A lot of people against stricter gun laws make it seem like the end of the world in most cases. A lot of people for stricter gun laws make it seem like it's what will save the world in most cases. Having a more thorough background check works for everyone. Makes it harder for people who shouldn't have them, to not have them -- unless they go through more unconventional means, which, already happens as is. It also allows the responsible gun owners to be known that they are responsible and have proven they are capable. I did mention I personally don't see it as making a dent in the problem, which I didn't mean it wasn't worth at least trying. The fact that there is loopholes is it's own problem, I just wish both sides would stop blowing it out of proportion as either the end all or the save all scenario with it, because I believe it's not going to make a dent at all, whether it happens or not. I think the only issue I have with "stricter" is if a drastic price increase is put in place. Some people may live in a shitty area and only feel safe in the thought of owning a gun, but because of a price increase, suddenly that Glock 17 5th Gen has gone from about $475, to $900 where now they might not be able to buy it for home protection. Yeah the argument can be made get an alarm system or get a dog, but that may not always be comfort of mind for that one person.

No, no. Ignore population. It's irrelevant really. Compare gun crime by ratio between the UK and the US. Or Australia and the US. Or insert blank here and the US. The US has more gun crime, period.

]
More crime period.

Can't say I have. Why don't you enlighten me on what it has to do with gun control exactly. And no, not "dey took our gurns"(or 'tried' to). I'm not talking about taking people's guns away. I'm talking about making guns harder to get, like they should be. Sort of similar to how you need to sit several tests and do lessons before you're allowed to get behind the wheel of a car.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ] . What kind of tests would you recommend?

Except no. When guns are harder to obtain, they're harder for everyone to obtain. With strict gun laws, law abiding citizens will still have their guns, but criminals will now have to go elsewhere, try something else.

Where are criminals getting guns? Try something else? Last time I checked if you are going to commit a crime with a weapon, you don't want one registered to you. Again, illegal guns will still be flowing in from Mexico so it won't be hard to get a gun.

Unfortunately not considering a lot of people seem to think prayers help more than actually helping.

Are you helping?

Ironic considering you literally went and downvoted my post as soon as you seen that I done it to you. It's almost as if I thought you're post wasn't useful, huh?

<3 Sure did, its like I thought your posts wasn't too useful also, huh? Never said I was complaining bud, I just thought it was funny so I returned the favor

TastyCashews wrote More crime period.

Yeah? This doesn't back up your views/claims. The US has more crime per capita than the UK, and significantly more gun crime per capita.

TastyCashews wrote [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Okay? Don't see what this has to do with anything I've said?

TastyCashews wrote What kind of tests would you recommend?

Proper background checks and a monitored physical test with a firearm.

TastyCashews wrote Where are criminals getting guns?

The majority obtain guns through straw purchase sales, they have someone else obtain the gun legally. Second most common method would be corrupt gun dealers. You make guns harder to obtain, and it absolutely takes a LOT of guns away from criminals. Just because it doesn't remove all illegal guns from criminals, doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact.

TastyCashews wrote Again, illegal guns will still be flowing in from Mexico so it won't be hard to get a gun.

Okay, so show me that criminals ONLY use guns from Mexico? Show me that criminals never use legally obtained guns.

TastyCashews wrote Are you helping?

Yeah, about the same amount as religion.

TastyCashews wrote <3 Sure did, its like I thought your post wasn't too useful also, huh?

Actually, no. It's kinda like you seen that I downvoted your post, commented on it, and then went back to downvote all of mine.

TastyCashews wrote Never said I was complaining bud, I just thought it was funny so I returned the favor

Yeah, what you done was say " Effective criticism.", sarcastically obviously because you weren't aware I was in the middle of responding to you. Also, you've just admitted that you went back and downvoted my posts because I disagree'd with one of yours lmfao.

TaigaAisaka wrote

Click to View Content

13 wrote

Extorted wrote And what I mean is people who have guns are shooting people. The gun doesnt shoot them by itself.

Yeah, and it's still a moot point. Stricter gun laws = less guns, try shooting someone when you can't get a hold of a gun. Obviously a gun can't shoot itself but a person can't shoot someone without a gun. That's like saying "oh well, cars aren't the reason there are collisions, it's the people driving".

Extorted wrote Having even stricter gun laws here isnt going to do anything, that's just America.

This literally isn't even a point/argument. It doesn't even make sense. Of course stricter gun laws would reduce gun crime. It's always the "but Murica, we different" whenever someone mentions the UK and it's strict gun laws. Well, okay, look at any other country that decided to make guns harder to obtain, gun crimes decrease and mass shootings significantly decrease. It's just a fact. The only thing stricter gun laws are going to do, is take more guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't own them, not people who have a legitimate reason for a weapon. How you can be against that is just beyond me. It's illogical.

Extorted wrote There are millions of illegal weapons here in the US, if a criminal wants one he will get one regardless of the law.

So gun laws are just fine the way they are because who cares, surely a criminal could get a gun anyway if he really wanted? Let's just not make it harder at all, because who cares. Guess what, it was pretty common at one time in the UK for criminals to use guns, not any more. Want to know why? Stricter gun laws. Sure, SOME people can still get a hold of guns illegally, but that doesn't mean that just having ridiculously loose gun laws wouldn't make a difference? Of course it makes a difference.

Extorted wrote Same with drugs, there sure are laws that prohibit them, but people still get them.

Yeah, and if it was legalised and regulated, you know, with the proper laws, it would be harder for anyone to abuse these substances, or die from them. Again, weird how that works?

TaigaAisaka wrote it's not going to solve the problem completely

and this is exactly the problem I have with a lot of Americans. They think that just because gun crime(or even crime in general) won;t just completely stop with stricter gun laws, that it's irrelevant in the first place(not saying you think this way, of course). A lot of people will just think "oh well, no point making gun laws stricter since there's still gonna be crime anyway". It's moronic.

TaigaAisaka wrote Someone who wants to commit a crime is going to do it, even if they have to go out of their way to get it. In a completely extreme scenario, guns could be completely banned in America except for police, national guard, secret service, ect but there still would be shootings and there still would be mass murders. As I said before, the gang problem in America is an actual problem. They'll still have the guns, they'll still have access to get guns and if someone wants to go shoot up a school and has the contact, nothing is really stopping that person unless some sort of authority is hounding in on their activities and can stop them before it happens.

I agree, for the most part, but making gun laws stricter will absolutely make it harder for criminals to obtain guns, that's the entire idea behind strict gun laws. It's the reason they exist. No one is taking guns away from people who are capable of owning them, so why should those people worry about having stricter gun laws? They shouldn't. It's like how if someone in the UK really wants a gun, they'll get one, but it's not worth the hassle of getting an illegal gun here, it's nowhere near as easy as in America, or even as easy as it used to be in the UK.

TaigaAisaka wrote I hardly believe it will make a dent in the problem that happens within America.

and here's my biggest problem. So what? I mean, all the evidence points towards a decrease in gun crime if stricter gun laws were put in place, but even if crime stayed the same, so what? What exactly is the downside of stricter gun laws if gun crime did remain exactly the same? The people who are capable of owning guns, will still own their guns.

I definitely agree that the background check needs to be more stricter and more thorough for obtaining a gun, no more loopholes like I mentioned with some gun shows and with what I was told about California's apparent "7 year only police background check." I too agree that rightful gun owners won't have to worry as they'll keep what they have and people who are trying to obtain a gun with no wrongful intentions or who are mentally stable have nothing to worry about with a stricter and more thorough process of obtaining one. Going back to actually imposing a stricter process, I really just believe that some people literally think that imposing stricter gun laws is going to be the end all of violence in America, just as some people believe imposing stricter gun laws think it's going to be the end all of their American right to own a firearm. I personally don't think it will fix anything simply off the fact that people are going to do what they want to do, be that with a firearm or without. Is it worth implementing a more thorough background check system/practice? Absolutely. If I was an FFL dealer and in some scenario I was given the choice that I had to sell a gun to either a person who got arrested for smoking pot when they were 15 or sell a gun to a person who is a known Schizophrenic (in this scenario I am legally allowed to sell to either,) I'm going with the munchy-junky boi; however, if I didn't know that person was a Schizophrenic, I would have chosen them and that person could end up having a mental snap one day and now they own a firearm.

Just people on both ends seem to go to the far extremes of it. A lot of people against stricter gun laws make it seem like the end of the world in most cases. A lot of people for stricter gun laws make it seem like it's what will save the world in most cases. Having a more thorough background check works for everyone. Makes it harder for people who shouldn't have them, to not have them -- unless they go through more unconventional means, which, already happens as is. It also allows the responsible gun owners to be known that they are responsible and have proven they are capable. I did mention I personally don't see it as making a dent in the problem, which I didn't mean it wasn't worth at least trying. The fact that there is loopholes is it's own problem, I just wish both sides would stop blowing it out of proportion as either the end all or the save all scenario with it, because I believe it's not going to make a dent at all, whether it happens or not. I think the only issue I have with "stricter" is if a drastic price increase is put in place. Some people may live in a shitty area and only feel safe in the thought of owning a gun, but because of a price increase, suddenly that Glock 17 5th Gen has gone from about $475, to $900 where now they might not be able to buy it for home protection. Yeah the argument can be made get an alarm system or get a dog, but that may not always be comfort of mind for that one person.

I pretty much agree with you on all points here. The only real issue I have with legally obtained guns, that are being used by responsible people is "conceal and carry". I really don't see any reason to take a gun out in to the streets with you.

As for home protection, sure, but I've had to protect myself in and out of my own home, and have never needed a gun to do so.

I have absolutely no problem with someone owning a gun though, regardless of their reason, as long as they're deemed worthy by someone(or several people) who is capable of actually deeming them worthy. Stricter gun laws wouldn't have any affect on these people though so I have no idea why people are against stricter gun control. Even IF stricter gun control didn't take a single weapon out of the hands of criminals, what are the downsides?

I'm a proud American and I'm against stricter gun laws, if anything we need to lax our laws on guns. I have always said this and I always will. It didn't work for Mexico and it won't work for the US. One thing people fail to see is that there is absolutely zero evidence to support the fact that having stricter gun laws or banning guns all together will reduce crime / murder rate. You have places like America with high gun ownership and high crime rates. Then you have places like England with low gun ownership and high crime rate. Then you have places like Sweden with high gun ownership and low crime rate.

The simple fact is, America has an idiot problem, not a gun problem. Let's look at it another way though.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]


For those of you who think the gun show loophole is a real thing, please watch this video. What you guys think happens is illegal and doesn't happen very often.