notvote4memotm2016XD wrote

Miss wrote Seems like you forgot the UK is an island, where it is near impossible to illegally bring anything in. Compared to us here in the states, two huge borders with land and water.

And it is true we have a very high rate of gun violence per capita. But if you take out the three largest cities that have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation (L.A., Chicago, and New York), we have a very very low rate of gun violence. And that is a fact.

Also, how did gun bans work out for Brussels, Paris, and San Bernardino?

Don't fear inanimate objects, my friend.

So your argument is that inordinately high rates of gun crime, killing thousands of children, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers is okay, because it only happens in three concentrated points within your country? Ok dude. Also another basis of your argument to keep firearms, regardless of the death tolls they forge is on the back of other countries having an easier time banning them and thats unfair that you have to deal with two whole borders? So you're basically saying we may as well keep it legalised cause it's hard to enforce a rule. Again, Ok dude.

I'd like to see some figures detailing how the rest of the cities/states don't make up for much gun crime if you are going to claim its a fact, by the way.

Also your reference to firearms as "inanimate objects" suggests that you blame the people wielding them (which is completely logical I agree) however, you would sooner try to change the psychology of millions of Americans capable of killing other human beings rather than put a ban on the objects allowing them to do so? Okay, lets see how that works out.

When will you guys realise that "freedom" as you describe the right to bear arms as is irrelevant if you aren't alive to exercise it.

Have you been to the US? We can't keep the Mexicans on their side, let along the drugs. Add guns into the mix? It's impossible.

There have always been guns in America, and there always will be guns in America. This means that I, a legal owner of an oh so bad gun, might get broken into by the guy tweaking on meth and he might steal my gun. You can't keep something so readily available out of bad hands.

You need to read our 2nd amendment further than just "the right to bear arms". The second amendment was created so we the people can form a well-regulated militia to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.

C4s wrote Im just gonna leave this here

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

and also this

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

wanna read the post before posting gun memes made for republicans for retards to believe is the simple truth - there are criminals in all countries, if guns are embargoed they have a lot harder time getting hold of guns and ergo killing people.

002 wrote Oh boy, this topic again.

Hmm, let's look at some numbers. The UK has 64.1 million people, and the US has 318.9 million people. There are going to be a lot more issues in the US regardless....

Ok, next. 32k people die every year from guns. That's what? 0.01% of the population? Oh, but let's not forget that 20k of those deaths where suicide, and 2k where gang related. Cool, so now we're down to 10k deaths, that's 0.003% of the population? Is that honestly a big enough number to justify taking guns away from the rest of the people?

According to the Trackers data, which defines a massacre as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870. We know that gang violence roughly accounts for what? 15% of that? That's about 56 of those shootings. Let's say that the others where all the bad people shooting up schools of innocent children and such. That's 316 mass shootings. We look at a lot of these shootings it is 1 person doing it. Let's jump the number to say that from the 316 mass shootings, 1k people where shooters. So 0.00031357792411414236% of the US population are mass shooters. That means 1 person out of every 318,900 people are "mass shooters". 1 out of every 318,900, should that 1 person being an idiot account for guns being taken away for the next 318,900 people behind them? NO.

But please, I'm all ears. What do YOU suppose we should do? There are all sorts of people saying America is a horrible place because 0.0003% of the population are shooters and 0.003% of the population die from guns, so how do we solve it? We can't simply take them away, because I as a law abiding citizen will not hand in my gun, along with many others. I often hear that people want stricter regulations on how you get guns. I have yet to hear a viable option as to what else we can do. As it stands right now, if you buy a gun at a legal FFL you know that they do everything but know what will happen with the gun in the next 20 years. I do agree however that being able to sell guns at a gun show without a registered FFL there should be illegal. Yes, you are supposed to go to an FFL to transfer it into your name, but if anyone has done that, you know that it's like going to the DMV for a new drivers license picture. It sucks, so people don't do it. The only way past it that I can see is have 1 legal FFL booth for every 5 gun booths and make sure no one leaves with a gun that they did not transfer. Another way to do it is write everyone's names down and have a signing party at an FFL the next day. For example I'd go there, I see a gun I want say I'll buy this gun, write my name down and let's get it registered tomorrow, all the while the gun is still at the booth until it is in your name. That's all we can do.

So you are willing to relegate the students and teachers of Columbine, Lindhurst, Sandy Hook, Pearl High, Santana High, Virginia Tech as well as the innocents in various public places to a percentage?! Like don't worry guys its okay cause most people dont get killed. Listen to your infantile reasoning. And whats it all for? Is it just the principle that you don't like have the slightest bit of freedom of choice taken away? Are their lives not important enough for you to give up the ability to shoot animals and the non existent intruders in your house you all talk about?

You are asking me to propose change? what would I do? Place an embargo on the supply of guns full stop. Are you guys babies with rattles? Once its taken away you want it for the sake of wanting it? The second amendment was written when there were standards in battle. When guns weren't capable of taking out schools and clubs of people - it was written when dueling was a sport for christ's sake. Are you incapable of adapting when it is clearly needed.

You are also still talking about the requirement for licensing and ticking boxes to be able to purchase a weapon, however, you still have not provided any evidence to suggest that this stops the amount of barbaric shootings that go on. Shall we all just ignore these events that only seem to happen in the US barring a few other nations like Venezuela and parts of Africa. There are plenty of other hugely popularised areas such as China (larger than USA) that don't have these problems, so don't just justify your statistics as "we have more people than you do so its bound to happen" cause as long as you can prove its a "small amount" then its fine to keep on going on as you do.

Miss wrote

Click to View Content

notvote4memotm2016XD wrote

Miss wrote Seems like you forgot the UK is an island, where it is near impossible to illegally bring anything in. Compared to us here in the states, two huge borders with land and water.

And it is true we have a very high rate of gun violence per capita. But if you take out the three largest cities that have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation (L.A., Chicago, and New York), we have a very very low rate of gun violence. And that is a fact.

Also, how did gun bans work out for Brussels, Paris, and San Bernardino?

Don't fear inanimate objects, my friend.

So your argument is that inordinately high rates of gun crime, killing thousands of children, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers is okay, because it only happens in three concentrated points within your country? Ok dude. Also another basis of your argument to keep firearms, regardless of the death tolls they forge is on the back of other countries having an easier time banning them and thats unfair that you have to deal with two whole borders? So you're basically saying we may as well keep it legalised cause it's hard to enforce a rule. Again, Ok dude.

I'd like to see some figures detailing how the rest of the cities/states don't make up for much gun crime if you are going to claim its a fact, by the way.

Also your reference to firearms as "inanimate objects" suggests that you blame the people wielding them (which is completely logical I agree) however, you would sooner try to change the psychology of millions of Americans capable of killing other human beings rather than put a ban on the objects allowing them to do so? Okay, lets see how that works out.

When will you guys realise that "freedom" as you describe the right to bear arms as is irrelevant if you aren't alive to exercise it.

64% of all gun deaths in the U.S. are from suicide. With males being 85% of those deaths. So no one is going around killing sisters, mothers, etc.

You also don't understand or know the constitution clearly, so I'll ignore them being "legal".

I don't have to show any facts, just tell me the last time you heard of a mass shooting in Texas? Or better yet, how is Mexico doing with their gun ban? Or Colombia. Or Venezuela.

I don't blame the welder, I blame the crazy person holding it. Same way liberals don't blame all Muslims for the action of one. Why blame all gun owners?

When will you realize criminals don't follow the law, hence why they're criminals. Banning guns only takes them away from law-abiding citizens.

Cars, pills, and diseases are the three main causes of death here in the U.S., want us to ban them three as well?

I called them legal, because they are, having a license to own one still makes them legal. But I guess you have so few points to make you have to dig up an empty argument somewhere.

Also "I don't have to show you facts" lmao, you sound like Trump bro! Make America great again! Well even though the article I linked expressly nullifies the suicide rate figures you've made up here's more evidence to prove you're chatting shit [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Miss wrote just tell me the last time you heard of a mass shooting in Texas? Or better yet, how is Mexico doing with their gun ban? Or Colombia. Or Venezuela.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

here you go a list of all the chronological school shootings dating to this year - I see a lot more states than just NY and CA? or am i blind?

Miss wrote When will you realize criminals don't follow the law, hence why they're criminals. Banning guns only takes them away from law-abiding citizens.

Already preempted youd make that tired old argument, you couldve at least read my post before typing this but it appears you haven't bothered so, care to explain why other countries with equal rates of criminality per capita have far less gun crime incidents when guns are embargoed?

Miss wrote Cars, pills, and diseases are the three main causes of death here in the U.S., want us to ban them three as well

LMAO you're actually trying to compare guns to these three cases, surely you can work out for yourself why cars, prescription drugs and a non physical entity cant be banned..

notvote4memotm2016XD wrote

C4s wrote Im just gonna leave this here

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

and also this

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

wanna read the post before posting gun memes made for republicans for retards to believe is the simple truth - there are criminals in all countries, if guns are embargoed they have a lot harder time getting hold of guns and ergo killing people.

002 wrote Oh boy, this topic again.

Hmm, let's look at some numbers. The UK has 64.1 million people, and the US has 318.9 million people. There are going to be a lot more issues in the US regardless....

Ok, next. 32k people die every year from guns. That's what? 0.01% of the population? Oh, but let's not forget that 20k of those deaths where suicide, and 2k where gang related. Cool, so now we're down to 10k deaths, that's 0.003% of the population? Is that honestly a big enough number to justify taking guns away from the rest of the people?

According to the Trackers data, which defines a massacre as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870. We know that gang violence roughly accounts for what? 15% of that? That's about 56 of those shootings. Let's say that the others where all the bad people shooting up schools of innocent children and such. That's 316 mass shootings. We look at a lot of these shootings it is 1 person doing it. Let's jump the number to say that from the 316 mass shootings, 1k people where shooters. So 0.00031357792411414236% of the US population are mass shooters. That means 1 person out of every 318,900 people are "mass shooters". 1 out of every 318,900, should that 1 person being an idiot account for guns being taken away for the next 318,900 people behind them? NO.

But please, I'm all ears. What do YOU suppose we should do? There are all sorts of people saying America is a horrible place because 0.0003% of the population are shooters and 0.003% of the population die from guns, so how do we solve it? We can't simply take them away, because I as a law abiding citizen will not hand in my gun, along with many others. I often hear that people want stricter regulations on how you get guns. I have yet to hear a viable option as to what else we can do. As it stands right now, if you buy a gun at a legal FFL you know that they do everything but know what will happen with the gun in the next 20 years. I do agree however that being able to sell guns at a gun show without a registered FFL there should be illegal. Yes, you are supposed to go to an FFL to transfer it into your name, but if anyone has done that, you know that it's like going to the DMV for a new drivers license picture. It sucks, so people don't do it. The only way past it that I can see is have 1 legal FFL booth for every 5 gun booths and make sure no one leaves with a gun that they did not transfer. Another way to do it is write everyone's names down and have a signing party at an FFL the next day. For example I'd go there, I see a gun I want say I'll buy this gun, write my name down and let's get it registered tomorrow, all the while the gun is still at the booth until it is in your name. That's all we can do.

So you are willing to relegate the students and teachers of Columbine, Lindhurst, Sandy Hook, Pearl High, Santana High, Virginia Tech as well as the innocents in various public places to a percentage?! Like don't worry guys its okay cause most people dont get killed. Listen to your infantile reasoning. And whats it all for? Is it just the principle that you don't like have the slightest bit of freedom of choice taken away? Are their lives not important enough for you to give up the ability to shoot animals and the non existent intruders in your house you all talk about?

You are asking me to propose change? what would I do? Place an embargo on the supply of guns full stop. Are you guys babies with rattles? Once its taken away you want it for the sake of wanting it? The second amendment was written when there were standards in battle. When guns weren't capable of taking out schools and clubs of people - it was written when dueling was a sport for christ's sake. Are you incapable of adapting when it is clearly needed.

You are also still talking about the requirement for licensing and ticking boxes to be able to purchase a weapon, however, you still have not provided any evidence to suggest that this stops the amount of barbaric shootings that go on. Shall we all just ignore these events that only seem to happen in the US barring a few other nations like Venezuela and parts of Africa. There are plenty of other hugely popularised areas such as China (larger than USA) that don't have these problems, so don't just justify your statistics as "we have more people than you do so its bound to happen" cause as long as you can prove its a "small amount" then its fine to keep on going on as you do.

I don't think you understand facts. There are a ton of guns here. People won't give them (myself included), so if these people can't get a gun, the steal mine. Oh, but let's say it's a perfect world, no citizen has a gun. Cool, they are hard to get, what;s next? The tannerite you can buy from Walmart. Great thinking.

You have no idea how hard I laughed when you said take the supply of guns to a full stop, that was hilarious. Take your liberal ideas and keep them in your country rofl. In case you didn't notice, we are not ruled by tyrants. You mean to tell me, that you think because 10k people die a year that shouldn't, we should take away guns? What about the rest of the people who need guns for hunting? I want you to visit places like Chicago and walk down the streets. Tell me you'd feel safe with pepper spray, you won't.

80% of guns used in these attacks are purchased legally. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about in this conversation, so I am done. You have no idea how the real world works. Guns will always be around in the US weather or not you make them illegal, kind of like drugs.

Polygon wrote Don't worry guys, the victims of 9/11 don't matter because they're such a small percentage of the population.
Oh wait, apparently they do matter since you guys get raging freedom boners every September 11th

9/11 was covered up by the US government. That's a different topic for a different time, so let's go with it was a terror attack. What did we do? 10+ years of war until we killed the problem? What do we do with the mass shooters? Kill them?

notvote4memotm2016XD wrote

Miss wrote

Click to View Content

notvote4memotm2016XD wrote

Miss wrote Seems like you forgot the UK is an island, where it is near impossible to illegally bring anything in. Compared to us here in the states, two huge borders with land and water.

And it is true we have a very high rate of gun violence per capita. But if you take out the three largest cities that have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation (L.A., Chicago, and New York), we have a very very low rate of gun violence. And that is a fact.

Also, how did gun bans work out for Brussels, Paris, and San Bernardino?

Don't fear inanimate objects, my friend.

So your argument is that inordinately high rates of gun crime, killing thousands of children, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers is okay, because it only happens in three concentrated points within your country? Ok dude. Also another basis of your argument to keep firearms, regardless of the death tolls they forge is on the back of other countries having an easier time banning them and thats unfair that you have to deal with two whole borders? So you're basically saying we may as well keep it legalised cause it's hard to enforce a rule. Again, Ok dude.

I'd like to see some figures detailing how the rest of the cities/states don't make up for much gun crime if you are going to claim its a fact, by the way.

Also your reference to firearms as "inanimate objects" suggests that you blame the people wielding them (which is completely logical I agree) however, you would sooner try to change the psychology of millions of Americans capable of killing other human beings rather than put a ban on the objects allowing them to do so? Okay, lets see how that works out.

When will you guys realise that "freedom" as you describe the right to bear arms as is irrelevant if you aren't alive to exercise it.

64% of all gun deaths in the U.S. are from suicide. With males being 85% of those deaths. So no one is going around killing sisters, mothers, etc.

You also don't understand or know the constitution clearly, so I'll ignore them being "legal".

I don't have to show any facts, just tell me the last time you heard of a mass shooting in Texas? Or better yet, how is Mexico doing with their gun ban? Or Colombia. Or Venezuela.

I don't blame the welder, I blame the crazy person holding it. Same way liberals don't blame all Muslims for the action of one. Why blame all gun owners?

When will you realize criminals don't follow the law, hence why they're criminals. Banning guns only takes them away from law-abiding citizens.

Cars, pills, and diseases are the three main causes of death here in the U.S., want us to ban them three as well?

I called them legal, because they are, having a license to own one still makes them legal. But I guess you have so few points to make you have to dig up an empty argument somewhere.

Also "I don't have to show you facts" lmao, you sound like Trump bro! Make America great again! Well even though the article I linked expressly nullifies the suicide rate figures you've made up here's more evidence to prove you're chatting shit [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Miss wrote just tell me the last time you heard of a mass shooting in Texas? Or better yet, how is Mexico doing with their gun ban? Or Colombia. Or Venezuela.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

here you go a list of all the chronological school shootings dating to this year - I see a lot more states than just NY and CA? or am i blind?

Miss wrote When will you realize criminals don't follow the law, hence why they're criminals. Banning guns only takes them away from law-abiding citizens.

Already preempted youd make that tired old argument, you couldve at least read my post before typing this but it appears you haven't bothered so, care to explain why other countries with equal rates of criminality per capita have far less gun crime incidents when guns are embargoed?

Miss wrote Cars, pills, and diseases are the three main causes of death here in the U.S., want us to ban them three as well

LMAO you're actually trying to compare guns to these three cases, surely you can work out for yourself why cars, prescription drugs and a non physical entity cant be banned..

I am done speaking with you. At the point you resort to the idiot and retard arguments, there is no getting through to you with facts.

We can't ban all guns from the USA.

They've been there too long now for anything to be done about it, perhaps if this war twenty years ago then it would be possible but too many people have them now.

They should do what Australia did and restrict the more dangerous guns like semi-automatics and pistols. They could also pay people for handing in their restricted weapons and then nobody would be losing out.

I don't think that anyone disagrees with someone owning a hunting rifle or sawed off shotgun just for hunting or for target practice. That's a lot different than someone purchasing a semi-automatic rifle though.

002 wrote

notvote4memotm2016XD wrote

C4s wrote Im just gonna leave this here

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

and also this

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

wanna read the post before posting gun memes made for republicans for retards to believe is the simple truth - there are criminals in all countries, if guns are embargoed they have a lot harder time getting hold of guns and ergo killing people.

002 wrote Oh boy, this topic again.

Hmm, let's look at some numbers. The UK has 64.1 million people, and the US has 318.9 million people. There are going to be a lot more issues in the US regardless....

Ok, next. 32k people die every year from guns. That's what? 0.01% of the population? Oh, but let's not forget that 20k of those deaths where suicide, and 2k where gang related. Cool, so now we're down to 10k deaths, that's 0.003% of the population? Is that honestly a big enough number to justify taking guns away from the rest of the people?

According to the Trackers data, which defines a massacre as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870. We know that gang violence roughly accounts for what? 15% of that? That's about 56 of those shootings. Let's say that the others where all the bad people shooting up schools of innocent children and such. That's 316 mass shootings. We look at a lot of these shootings it is 1 person doing it. Let's jump the number to say that from the 316 mass shootings, 1k people where shooters. So 0.00031357792411414236% of the US population are mass shooters. That means 1 person out of every 318,900 people are "mass shooters". 1 out of every 318,900, should that 1 person being an idiot account for guns being taken away for the next 318,900 people behind them? NO.

But please, I'm all ears. What do YOU suppose we should do? There are all sorts of people saying America is a horrible place because 0.0003% of the population are shooters and 0.003% of the population die from guns, so how do we solve it? We can't simply take them away, because I as a law abiding citizen will not hand in my gun, along with many others. I often hear that people want stricter regulations on how you get guns. I have yet to hear a viable option as to what else we can do. As it stands right now, if you buy a gun at a legal FFL you know that they do everything but know what will happen with the gun in the next 20 years. I do agree however that being able to sell guns at a gun show without a registered FFL there should be illegal. Yes, you are supposed to go to an FFL to transfer it into your name, but if anyone has done that, you know that it's like going to the DMV for a new drivers license picture. It sucks, so people don't do it. The only way past it that I can see is have 1 legal FFL booth for every 5 gun booths and make sure no one leaves with a gun that they did not transfer. Another way to do it is write everyone's names down and have a signing party at an FFL the next day. For example I'd go there, I see a gun I want say I'll buy this gun, write my name down and let's get it registered tomorrow, all the while the gun is still at the booth until it is in your name. That's all we can do.

So you are willing to relegate the students and teachers of Columbine, Lindhurst, Sandy Hook, Pearl High, Santana High, Virginia Tech as well as the innocents in various public places to a percentage?! Like don't worry guys its okay cause most people dont get killed. Listen to your infantile reasoning. And whats it all for? Is it just the principle that you don't like have the slightest bit of freedom of choice taken away? Are their lives not important enough for you to give up the ability to shoot animals and the non existent intruders in your house you all talk about?

You are asking me to propose change? what would I do? Place an embargo on the supply of guns full stop. Are you guys babies with rattles? Once its taken away you want it for the sake of wanting it? The second amendment was written when there were standards in battle. When guns weren't capable of taking out schools and clubs of people - it was written when dueling was a sport for christ's sake. Are you incapable of adapting when it is clearly needed.

You are also still talking about the requirement for licensing and ticking boxes to be able to purchase a weapon, however, you still have not provided any evidence to suggest that this stops the amount of barbaric shootings that go on. Shall we all just ignore these events that only seem to happen in the US barring a few other nations like Venezuela and parts of Africa. There are plenty of other hugely popularised areas such as China (larger than USA) that don't have these problems, so don't just justify your statistics as "we have more people than you do so its bound to happen" cause as long as you can prove its a "small amount" then its fine to keep on going on as you do.

I don't think you understand facts. There are a ton of guns here. People won't give them (myself included), so if these people can't get a gun, the steal mine. Oh, but let's say it's a perfect world, no citizen has a gun. Cool, they are hard to get, what;s next? The tannerite you can buy from Walmart. Great thinking.

You have no idea how hard I laughed when you said take the supply of guns to a full stop, that was hilarious. Take your liberal ideas and keep them in your country rofl. In case you didn't notice, we are not ruled by tyrants. You mean to tell me, that you think because 10k people die a year that shouldn't, we should take away guns? What about the rest of the people who need guns for hunting? I want you to visit places like Chicago and walk down the streets. Tell me you'd feel safe with pepper spray, you won't.

80% of guns used in these attacks are purchased legally. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about in this conversation, so I am done. You have no idea how the real world works. Guns will always be around in the US weather or not you make them illegal, kind of like drugs.

LOL you actually haven't addressed any of my counterargument - I accept that it may be a small percentage, but you haven't addressed the issue that that still isn't okay. Perhaps we can employ you to go home to these families and tell them their son or daughter is dead.

You're actually so mad now lmao, you just predict arbitrarily that if you don't have guns people will resort to tannerite, are you literally that assured that people are that desperate to kill others in the states - I mean even though throughout this whole thread I've been providing statistics and examples that less guns directly lead to less mortality, you just ignore and gloss over like its not important, but apparently I "don't understand facts". Anyways I'm done feeding you official statistics from various sources to which you have provided none except a simple division of gun rate to population which is irrelevant. You can continue on in your ignorance lol peace

Motivational wrote We can't ban all guns from the USA.

They've been there too long now for anything to be done about it, perhaps if this war twenty years ago then it would be possible but too many people have them now.

They should do what Australia did and restrict the more dangerous guns like semi-automatics and pistols. They could also pay people for handing in their restricted weapons and then nobody would be losing out.

I don't think that anyone disagrees with someone owning a hunting rifle or sawed off shotgun just for hunting or for target practice. That's a lot different than someone purchasing a semi-automatic rifle though.

The US has tried many buy back programs, but people often just turn in old used POS guns to go buy new ones. Not only that, but the US isn't in a great financial spot to do this.




I would like to bring up one further point before I leave this thread. Does anyone notice that these shootings happen in places like elementary schools, churches, and theaters? These are "gun free zones". I wander why a person looking to commit mass murder would go to a place where people don't have guns?

notvote4memotm2016XD wrote

002 wrote

notvote4memotm2016XD wrote

C4s wrote Im just gonna leave this here

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

and also this

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

wanna read the post before posting gun memes made for republicans for retards to believe is the simple truth - there are criminals in all countries, if guns are embargoed they have a lot harder time getting hold of guns and ergo killing people.

002 wrote Oh boy, this topic again.

Hmm, let's look at some numbers. The UK has 64.1 million people, and the US has 318.9 million people. There are going to be a lot more issues in the US regardless....

Ok, next. 32k people die every year from guns. That's what? 0.01% of the population? Oh, but let's not forget that 20k of those deaths where suicide, and 2k where gang related. Cool, so now we're down to 10k deaths, that's 0.003% of the population? Is that honestly a big enough number to justify taking guns away from the rest of the people?

According to the Trackers data, which defines a massacre as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870. We know that gang violence roughly accounts for what? 15% of that? That's about 56 of those shootings. Let's say that the others where all the bad people shooting up schools of innocent children and such. That's 316 mass shootings. We look at a lot of these shootings it is 1 person doing it. Let's jump the number to say that from the 316 mass shootings, 1k people where shooters. So 0.00031357792411414236% of the US population are mass shooters. That means 1 person out of every 318,900 people are "mass shooters". 1 out of every 318,900, should that 1 person being an idiot account for guns being taken away for the next 318,900 people behind them? NO.

But please, I'm all ears. What do YOU suppose we should do? There are all sorts of people saying America is a horrible place because 0.0003% of the population are shooters and 0.003% of the population die from guns, so how do we solve it? We can't simply take them away, because I as a law abiding citizen will not hand in my gun, along with many others. I often hear that people want stricter regulations on how you get guns. I have yet to hear a viable option as to what else we can do. As it stands right now, if you buy a gun at a legal FFL you know that they do everything but know what will happen with the gun in the next 20 years. I do agree however that being able to sell guns at a gun show without a registered FFL there should be illegal. Yes, you are supposed to go to an FFL to transfer it into your name, but if anyone has done that, you know that it's like going to the DMV for a new drivers license picture. It sucks, so people don't do it. The only way past it that I can see is have 1 legal FFL booth for every 5 gun booths and make sure no one leaves with a gun that they did not transfer. Another way to do it is write everyone's names down and have a signing party at an FFL the next day. For example I'd go there, I see a gun I want say I'll buy this gun, write my name down and let's get it registered tomorrow, all the while the gun is still at the booth until it is in your name. That's all we can do.

So you are willing to relegate the students and teachers of Columbine, Lindhurst, Sandy Hook, Pearl High, Santana High, Virginia Tech as well as the innocents in various public places to a percentage?! Like don't worry guys its okay cause most people dont get killed. Listen to your infantile reasoning. And whats it all for? Is it just the principle that you don't like have the slightest bit of freedom of choice taken away? Are their lives not important enough for you to give up the ability to shoot animals and the non existent intruders in your house you all talk about?

You are asking me to propose change? what would I do? Place an embargo on the supply of guns full stop. Are you guys babies with rattles? Once its taken away you want it for the sake of wanting it? The second amendment was written when there were standards in battle. When guns weren't capable of taking out schools and clubs of people - it was written when dueling was a sport for christ's sake. Are you incapable of adapting when it is clearly needed.

You are also still talking about the requirement for licensing and ticking boxes to be able to purchase a weapon, however, you still have not provided any evidence to suggest that this stops the amount of barbaric shootings that go on. Shall we all just ignore these events that only seem to happen in the US barring a few other nations like Venezuela and parts of Africa. There are plenty of other hugely popularised areas such as China (larger than USA) that don't have these problems, so don't just justify your statistics as "we have more people than you do so its bound to happen" cause as long as you can prove its a "small amount" then its fine to keep on going on as you do.

I don't think you understand facts. There are a ton of guns here. People won't give them (myself included), so if these people can't get a gun, the steal mine. Oh, but let's say it's a perfect world, no citizen has a gun. Cool, they are hard to get, what;s next? The tannerite you can buy from Walmart. Great thinking.

You have no idea how hard I laughed when you said take the supply of guns to a full stop, that was hilarious. Take your liberal ideas and keep them in your country rofl. In case you didn't notice, we are not ruled by tyrants. You mean to tell me, that you think because 10k people die a year that shouldn't, we should take away guns? What about the rest of the people who need guns for hunting? I want you to visit places like Chicago and walk down the streets. Tell me you'd feel safe with pepper spray, you won't.

80% of guns used in these attacks are purchased legally. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about in this conversation, so I am done. You have no idea how the real world works. Guns will always be around in the US weather or not you make them illegal, kind of like drugs.

LOL you actually haven't addressed any of my counterargument - I accept that it may be a small percentage, but you haven't addressed the issue that that still isn't okay. Perhaps we can employ you to go home to these families and tell them their son or daughter is dead.

You're actually so mad now lmao, you just predict arbitrarily that if you don't have guns people will resort to tannerite hahaha are you literally that assured that people are that desperate to kill others in the states - I mean even though throughout this whole thread I've been providing statistics and examples that less guns directly lead to less mortality, but apparently I "don't understand facts". Anyways I'm done feeding you official statistics from various sources to which you have provided none except a simple division of gun rate to population which is irrelevant. You can continue on in your ignorance lol peace

Yes, you've provided statistics, those won't change. Tell me one more statistic. How much did the UK murder rate increase per 100k after guns where banned? Go ahead, tell me. Also, I have provided facts on the other thread that was linked to you, it already has 6 pages, no need for another one here.

I'm "mad" because you are using childish words resorting to personal attacks.

It is such a small amount that we shouldn't be worried about taking guns away. If we're honestly worried about that small of a number, we might as well take cars away because 30k people die a year from cars. While we're at it, not more swimming because people die from drowning, oh, and no more fired because people die from those too. What about the thousands of people who rely on hunting for meat? I personally hunt with an AK-47. But hey, let's take away semi-auto "assault rifles". Now we're left with bolt action / lever action rifles. Great, now I can get on a roof top and snip everyone. Great idea.