002 wrote Ahh, so you see where banning guns would go now, I'm proud! You can see that banning knives in the UK would have people killing others with other things. The line is the same in the US, it just starts with guns. You can still kill mass amounts of people with something as simple as a pressure cooker (Boston bombing). People will kill people. Instead of focusing on the item used, focus on the person committing the action.

It's not quite that simple. If you fully ban guns then people wont do knife massacres that kill fifty people, because a knife just isn't as effective for killing people as a gun. Sure in Japan there has been a couple but that's because the attacks were on disabled/elderly/children instead of just an average person. All I'm saying is that if I could choose everyone owning a knife, which you can't restrict because they're so easy to make or owning a gun then I would far rather everyone have a knife.

002 wrote The reason I brought up the schools is because you said " there's never even been a school shooting in my country", then bring up murder rates in the US vs Japan. You are comparing apples to oranges to pears here and I'm simply showing why that doesn't work.

I compared the murder rates between US and Japan because Glock was implying that countries with stricter firearm laws aren't necessarily safer when Japan has no firearms and has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

002 wrote I didn't want to reply to what you were saying to Continious, but I just can't help myself. You bring this up I think in every debate regarding guns, and I say the same thing. You say "guns are used only to destroy things and I just don't support something like that", yet knives are also only used to destroy thing, same with axes, chain saws, bull dozers, and wrecking balls. Do you not support those either? Each one of these items (firearms included) have a purpose used for good, and a purpose used for bad.

Knives have a benefit behind them though, just like axes, chainsaws, bulldozers and so on.

Knives are used specifically for the purpose of cutting and preparing food, shaping objects, cutting wood, cutting fishing lines, rope and so on. They certainly weren't specifically designed by the Chinese as a weapon to win them battles like guns were.

The thing is, I genuinely see no good purpose for guns, either you're using them for self-defence against another gun in which case they should never have been made and you wouldn't be in that situation if they hadn't of been. Or you're using the gun for target practice or hunting which both results in something being destroyed, either the target or the animal's life or just a target.

I think we can both agree that there are other ways for massacres to happen besides firearms, as was shown in the Boston bombing. Unfortunately there are sick people out there and while there is a "need" to kill, people will kill.

Guns have a few good purposes. You already listed self defense, but they can also be used as another thing to have fun with. I like to go out to the range and throw some lead down range. Past that, they help less fortunate people get food on the table in a humane way (sorry but bows and spears are not humane in my opinion). They also help farmers who farm live stock, how do you think they kill the cow? Firearms also protect the farm. When you see coyotees at the chicken coop, a blast from a firearm will scare it away. Past that, if a farmer has time, he can actually improve meat quality with the firearm. Of course this rarely to never happens, but he can take a cow one by one on a stroll and shoot it in the head to avoid the adrenaline rush the cows get when taken to a slaughter house. Guns provide a safe, fast, cheap, and productive way of killing livestock.

Motivational wrote

Don't know why I called Chicago a state, I know that it's a city. That was pretty stupid I guess.

I didn't mean going into a gun shop and just purchasing a weapon because obviously there's going to be background checks and they'll realise that you're from a different state. I was more referring to open gun sales (sorry for the video below, I just know that it will annoy you haha) but you get the idea. You can go to a friend's house who lives in another state, get him to legally purchase a firearm for you you pay him and that's you sorted. Then you can bring that firearm back into the original state you came from. Obviously I don't live in America so my logic is flawed in different areas for this situation but you get the idea, if you knew the laws and how the situation is then it would be pretty easy to get an illegal weapon into your state from another state.

Federal Law:
18 USC 922 (a)(5)
"for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;"

So that means that what you stated above can happen, but not legally. And notice how I said legally, that means that it is not supposed to happen. You seem to not know the difference between legal and illegal.

In the video that you showed about the 13 year old buying a gun, they said that is legal. When that is not legal. I understand that you check to make sure that they are older then 18, or 21 for handguns. And you must not knowing sale to felons. Other than that, there should be no other checks. If you go through a background check, then the government has a record of what guns you have. Then when they come to take our guns, they are going to know what guns you have, and if you do not give them up. It is going to be a bad day for you.

Drugs are so easy to make though, it's normally just a plant that you grow and then harvest after a certain amount of time, in comparison to a fully functional firearm capable of carrying out a crime or mass shooting, they're really not comparable. It would take an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable person to make a proper gun from scratch and I doubt that a person that significant is going to waste their time making guns one at a time from scratch.

Some drugs can be made easily, while some drugs are very hard to make.
A gun can be made very easily...

A gun is not capable of carrying out a crime or a mass shooting, it is the person using them. Just like drugs can not carry out a crime, but you can commit a crime with drugs.
The above video that I showed, was not very complex. It was actually very simple. If you can make that gun, you can probably make some drugs. You do not need any more than one gun to commit a crime with a gun.

Well, firstly cops are trained to deal with situations like that and teachers are trained to teach, I can also almost guarantee that the majority of teachers would disagree with having a weapon

While I disagree with teachers having guns on school premise, your statement is false. A teacher can be trained to teach, but the teacher could do so much more. I have had teachers who used to be in the military. You could be a teacher and also be trained to use a gun in certain situations. While some teachers might not want a gun, they do not have to get one. But I can guarantee that a majority of people want to live and not get shot or killed.

It's not that we're afraid of knives in the UK, it's that if someone is going to commit a crime then they need a weapon to back them up (most of the time) and in the UK it happens to be knives. Seriously though, if we banned knives, people would use screwdrivers, baseball bats or whatever they can get their hands on but if someone came into my college with a knife we would literally laugh, sure it gives you a significant advantage but it's by no means a killing machine and it's still hard to kill someone with a knife.

I also live in Northern Ireland, which although is still technically in the UK, it has far less restrictive gun laws and it's on a completely separate island.

You might not be afraid of knifes, but I am not afraid of guns. I am afraid of the criminals that use them. Seriously though, if we banned guns, people would use screwdrivers, baseball bats or whatever they can get their hands on.

The Akihabara massacre was an incident of mass murder that took place on Sunday, June 8, 2008, in the Akihabara shopping quarter for electronics, video games, manga and anime in Sotokanda, Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan.

At 12:33 p.m., a man drove into a crowd with a truck, killing three people and injuring two; he then stabbed at least 12 people using a dagger (initially reported as a survival knife[1]), killing four people and injuring eight.

He did not use a gun, and he killed eight people, and injured 10. You are probably going to say "But what if he had a gun". If he had a gun, then he would probably do more damage. But here in America, there are more people with guns, so there is a higher chance of someone stopping the mass murder. And to this, you will probably respond with some statistic about how a lot of people who have guns will not intervene with a mass murder. I would say that If I had a gun, I would not use it unless my life is threatened directly. If the mass murder was directly shooting at me, then I would intervene if it was necessary. But I am not going to risk my life over someone else, unless it was someone I cared about. The majority of people that are in this world, I do not care about, they are just another person to me. And besides, the world is getting to be overpopulated. If those people wanted to protect themselves then they should have got a gun. And we should get rid of gun free zones, all they do is allow mass shooters to do this stuff. If a teacher should be able to have a gun on school grounds, then so should every one who can legally own a gun, and is not crazy. People who commit mass murders, are not going to follow the law.

Japan is waaaaay more packed together than America. Just because it's a small sized country in terms of land, has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of crime or anything like that. If anything, since knives are the weapon of choice in Japan then it should be a huge disadvantage to them.

@Continious

They've had 5 mass stabbings ever which has killed around forty people. The Orlando shooting in America killed more people than shootings or knife massacres has ever killed in Japan.

I did not look this up, but that is probably true. But this goes back to what I ended my last reply with. You look at a few statistics and think that you know everything about guns. And you only look at the negatives.

If you're talking about proper complicated drugs then there's no way that the average person would know how to make them, I wanted to be a paramedic for a while and had to do lots of training in medicine and chemistry and it was so damn complicated. I was referring to the majority of drugs that are very easy to make and not the small amount that are both expensive and require a ridiculous amount of equipment and resources to make.

Im not talking about super high grade drugs. I am talking about drugs that I could go search for a few hours and get. Drugs like meth. You do not have to be super smart to make meth, but your average person is not going to know how to make it. Same goes for guns, your average person is not going to know how to make one, but it is not super complicated.

Drugs and guns cannot possibly be used in this context, mainly because I live somewhere where both guns and drugs are illegal and I see drugs everywhere, yet I've never seen a gun except from law enforcement people. There's no incentive to make guns, they're too hard to make and they sell for so little in comparison for all the work that's put in, where as there's both a demand and easy supply for drugs.

We have so many guns in America, that anyone can get one. You can not compare where you live to America when it comes to guns. And besides criminals do not care about the law, they do what they want to do. Guns are not hard to make. Guns in America sell for a good amount. Someone could 3d print a gun, and they would be able to sell it for a decent amount. But any guns that you make in America is illegal to sell, unless you are a licensed dealer. So once again, you would have to break the law. You do not have to put a lot of time into making a gun.

Any gun that is simple to make, is simply not capable of doing a school shooting or causing serious amount of harm. Seriously, you could use a water bottle to kill someone if you want. Anything can kill people but a child can't carry a water bottle into a school and slaughter all the pupils and teachers because it's not a lethal weapon. The reason you should be able to buy whatever drug you want is because it doesn't harm anyone else and they can't be used in any situation to kill mass amounts of people.

Any gun is capable of doing a school shooting. Any gun can cause a serious amount of damage, any gun can kill you. A water bottle is not considered a lethal weapon, but it can be used for it. A gun is just the simplest and easiest tool when it comes to killing someone. Did you just not read what I said earlier? Drugs can be used to harm others or even kill them. Have you ever heard over a over dose. And do not have to physically harm someone to mess up there life. You can commit mass murders with drugs.

I have no problem with you owning a gun as-long as you're legally allowed to and you've got a legitimate reason such as a police officer or something. I just genuinely see guns as a waste of time and an unnecessary risk to other people around you.

Everyone who has a gun should be able to legally own a gun. Your definition of a legitimate reason to own a gun, and must be different things. You do not need a reason to have a gun. Maybe you just want to be prepared for if something happens. Just because your a police officer, does not mean that you are going to use a gun lawfully. Guns are not a waste of time, it is just like any other hobby or tool. Guns are not a unnecessary risk. Guns do not commit crimes, it is the people who use them.

If you go into the news section, you'll see the Mexican shooting and it was the most recent school shooting that I've seen and if you watch the real footage, the kid shoots a random pupil and then the teacher. She's killed literally instantly before she could even react.

Okay? That is kinda what a gun does, it kills. It is not the guns fault that it shot the teacher, it is the person who used it.

Nothing that I said was untrue, just a mere difference of opinion to you. And guns are used only to destroy things and I just don't support something like that.

The fact that I've seen a real life gun like twice, literally strengthens my argument. I'm just saying, have guns if you want but if you take them away then there will be no gun crime. Japan, the UK and so on are proof of this.

And please, you're like what, sixteen, seventeen? I'm not even going to go into the amount of things you don't know about life, never mind guns.

Now you are just lying, there were multiple things that you said that were untrue. Just skimming through what you said, I found a really simple lie that you said. You said that guns are "extremely complicated mechanisms", when that is just not true. And guns can be used to destroy stuff, but that is not always what they are intended to be used for.

Telling us that you have only seen a gun like twice, is not helping your argument, is shows that you have not had much experience with them, and just look at statistics. There are more to guns than a few numbers. Yes, if you take guns away, there would be no gun crime. That is just a given... No guns == no gun crime. Why did you have to say that? But if you take guns away, then you will just have crimes commited with other tools. But you can not get rid of guns, only some of the law abiding citizens will give up guns, and then the criminals would be the only ones that have guns. And a good majority of people who have guns, will take them to their graves. Guns keep America from having a tyrannical government.

Yes, I am seventeen, but what does that have to do with guns?

And I will just leave you with this...

I come back from work to see all these funny responses.

Most of these are coming from people who have never fired a weapon, own a firearm or have been shot at.


You can sit here all day and spew bullshit all you want.

But only someone with a firearm can stop someone else with a firearm. Simple as that. You can go and pull all your statistics and videos. At the end of the day.

I carry a firearm and have over 20 firearms in my house. I will still risk my life to save you even if you have bullshit views and spew hatred.

Glock- wrote I come back from work to see all these funny responses.

Most of these are coming from people who have never fired a weapon, own a firearm or have been shot at.


You can sit here all day and spew bullshit all you want.

But only someone with a firearm can stop someone else with a firearm. Simple as that. You can go and pull all your statistics and videos. At the end of the day.

I carry a firearm and have over 20 firearms in my house. I will still risk my life to save you even if you have bullshit views and spew hatred.

I know that you don't mean to do it in this way but you need to stop this "You haven't experienced it so your opinion is wrong" shtick you have.
People can't comment on the military unless they have been in the military. People can't comment on police brutality if they haven't been a police officer or a victim of police brutality. People can't comment on gun control if they haven't owned a gun or been shot at by one.

It doesn't make any sense. You can be correct on an issue without having experienced that issue first hand.

Let's assume that both of these studies have been done:

1) The amount of people unlawfully killed by guns in the USA in X year.
2) The amount of people saved by guns in the USA in X year.

If #2 had a higher result than #1 you would have no problems with me stating that my opinion on guns is that they should be carried by everyone because this statistic proves that they are saving people 24/7 and I have never held a gun.

It is only when people take the opposing view to yours that you feel like people should shut up about the topic if they haven't experienced it.

If I were to think that military was great and that their funding should be increased while having never been in the military, you would be fine with me holding that opinion. But if I say that the military should be de-funded and the money should be used in more important ways, I need to shut up because I have never been in the military so my opinion means nothing.

It's called no-platforming and it is exactly what SJW's do to Republicans all of the time.

This is like someone going onto that thread where people are talking about abortion and saying "All of you people who are against abortion need to shut up because you have never experienced the pain of it yourself. I have and that means that my opinion must be correct." You would not take them seriously.
"People need to shut up about feminism if they aren't a woman because they will have never experienced cat-calling."
I hear that all of the time and it sounds just as silly as when you say that people can't have an opinion on guns unless they have physically fired one themselves.

It is an easy way of avoiding the argument and it can be applied to pretty much any issue fallaciously.

I mean I could just as easily turn this around and tell you that your opinion is wrong because you are too invested in guns being legal to be unbiased about it. You enjoy guns too much and your ability to view this logically is clouded by that fact.

"Obviously a soldier is going to love the military and do anything to protect it."
"Obviously a police officer thinks that black lives matter is wrong."
"Obviously someone who owns guns wants them to be kept legal."

It doesn't work and it doesn't make sense, please stop doing it.

Glock- wrote I come back from work to see all these funny responses.

Most of these are coming from people who have never fired a weapon, own a firearm or have been shot at.


You can sit here all day and spew bullshit all you want.

But only someone with a firearm can stop someone else with a firearm. Simple as that. You can go and pull all your statistics and videos. At the end of the day.

I carry a firearm and have over 20 firearms in my house. I will still risk my life to save you even if you have bullshit views and spew hatred.

You have still failed to see my point.

All I was saying is that there are no firearms in my country, so nobody is ever worried of being shot. I see so many claims that only guns can stop guns and all this other shit when if you just took the guns out of the equation, nobody would get shot. Peroid.

I could tell you all about how Australia had a masacre in 1996, and they haven't had a massacre in the 20 years since. And they did this by getting their government to change the laws and make the majority of weapons illegal, then they rewarded people for handing in their illegal firearms, so nobody got into trouble, they were actually rewarded. Instead of banning guns, they made the laws stricter and rewarded people for handing their weapons in.

But you're still not going to listen because you're so obsessed with guns. I could use any statistic or any kind of masacre could happen tomorrow and you'd still think that guns are right and should be used because they benefit you. There's no arguing with someone that puts themselves in-front of their whole nation just because it makes them as an individual safer. I guarentee that if you worked in an office or there were no shootings in your country then you would hate guns as much as I do.

The whole "only a gun can stop a gun" is complete bullshit too. If someone walks up to you and shoots you at point blank when you have your back to them or your gun is in your holster then you're dead. If another human being wants to kill you then you're going to die almost every single time.

I'm yet to see a single shooting masacre where someone draws a weapon and shoots the shooter before any damage can happen. That's a fantasy situation, either accept that shootings don't happen when there's strict gun laws (they don't) or live in a culture where everyone has guns and if some person snaps, they can just go and do a shooting.

And for god sake, you're not risking your life to save me. You're carrying a gun 24/7 and you're wearing body armour. You probably have the safest job on the planet according to your logic. I never said that I wouldn't use a gun either, I simply said that there's no need for them because I can defend myself without the use of a weapon and it's safer for me if nobody has weapons. Americans hold so much respect for police officers and soldiers when it's the easiest job on the planet, anyone can be a soldier or a police officer.

Funny actually, I saw you viewing this thread multiple times last night when I was making my replies. Either you saw them and didn't reply because you were busy or you just wanted to make a post on your thread to start another debate.

*sigh*

For Continous

Cioran wrote

Glock- wrote I come back from work to see all these funny responses.

Most of these are coming from people who have never fired a weapon, own a firearm or have been shot at.


You can sit here all day and spew bullshit all you want.

But only someone with a firearm can stop someone else with a firearm. Simple as that. You can go and pull all your statistics and videos. At the end of the day.

I carry a firearm and have over 20 firearms in my house. I will still risk my life to save you even if you have bullshit views and spew hatred.

I know that you don't mean to do it in this way but you need to stop this "You haven't experienced it so your opinion is wrong" shtick you have.
People can't comment on the military unless they have been in the military. People can't comment on police brutality if they haven't been a police officer or a victim of police brutality. People can't comment on gun control if they haven't owned a gun or been shot at by one.

It doesn't make any sense. You can be correct on an issue without having experienced that issue first hand.

Let's assume that both of these studies have been done:

1) The amount of people unlawfully killed by guns in the USA in X year.
2) The amount of people saved by guns in the USA in X year.

If #2 had a higher result than #1 you would have no problems with me stating that my opinion on guns is that they should be carried by everyone because this statistic proves that they are saving people 24/7 and I have never held a gun.

It is only when people take the opposing view to yours that you feel like people should shut up about the topic if they haven't experienced it.

If I were to think that military was great and that their funding should be increased while having never been in the military, you would be fine with me holding that opinion. But if I say that the military should be de-funded and the money should be used in more important ways, I need to shut up because I have never been in the military so my opinion means nothing.

It's called no-platforming and it is exactly what SJW's do to Republicans all of the time.

This is like someone going onto that thread where people are talking about abortion and saying "All of you people who are against abortion need to shut up because you have never experienced the pain of it yourself. I have and that means that my opinion must be correct." You would not take them seriously.
"People need to shut up about feminism if they aren't a woman because they will have never experienced cat-calling."
I hear that all of the time and it sounds just as silly as when you say that people can't have an opinion on guns unless they have physically fired one themselves.

It is an easy way of avoiding the argument and it can be applied to pretty much any issue fallaciously.

I mean I could just as easily turn this around and tell you that your opinion is wrong because you are too invested in guns being legal to be unbiased about it. You enjoy guns too much and your ability to view this logically is clouded by that fact.

"Obviously a soldier is going to love the military and do anything to protect it."
"Obviously a police officer thinks that black lives matter is wrong."
"Obviously someone who owns guns wants them to be kept legal."

It doesn't work and it doesn't make sense, please stop doing it.

I don't think you fully understand the issues. US news (and I'm sure all around the world) puts a mass broadcast on mass murders, and murders in general with firearms so people form these skewed opinions based on what the media presents. I was talking to a guy and he asked me if I was scared living in America with all these shootings. Do shootings happen a lot? Yeah, but you're talking about 1 country that has the same amount of land and people as multiple countries in the middle east and grouping it all into one.

Basically if you don't have experience with firearms then you can't accurately portray what they are about. All you have is paper statistics that don't really mean much? What do I mean by that? Well I'm sure most of us here are adults and are in an issue when it comes to money, some of us have sat down and tried to figure it out right? So we sit down and budget, OK I make X amount per week, I spend X on fuel, etc. etc. etc. right? Then you come to this conclusion that you are able to save a BUNCH of money, yet it never really works out when you try it. What you see on paper vs what you see IRL never really meshes. When looking up statistics on ANYTHING, there are multiple sides to the story. With firearms you can take one thing, for example the death toll, and you will hear two different stories. liberals will say it's too many deaths and so many people shouldn't be dieing. Pro 2A people will say the 16k people who get shot and die each year is such a minuscule amount of people that it should not justify taking firearms away. What you get from the media and news channels is often the liberal side, people who don't know much about firearms but look at it on paper and want to take away guns.

With that said, you absolutely should have experience with firearms before judging them. Think about it this way, you are getting second hand info from the internet. Walk into a court and tell the judge that so and so SAID this guy killed the other guy. It won't work because you don't have the first hand knowledge, right?

002 wrote

Click to View Content

Cioran wrote

Glock- wrote I come back from work to see all these funny responses.

Most of these are coming from people who have never fired a weapon, own a firearm or have been shot at.


You can sit here all day and spew bullshit all you want.

But only someone with a firearm can stop someone else with a firearm. Simple as that. You can go and pull all your statistics and videos. At the end of the day.

I carry a firearm and have over 20 firearms in my house. I will still risk my life to save you even if you have bullshit views and spew hatred.

I know that you don't mean to do it in this way but you need to stop this "You haven't experienced it so your opinion is wrong" shtick you have.
People can't comment on the military unless they have been in the military. People can't comment on police brutality if they haven't been a police officer or a victim of police brutality. People can't comment on gun control if they haven't owned a gun or been shot at by one.

It doesn't make any sense. You can be correct on an issue without having experienced that issue first hand.

Let's assume that both of these studies have been done:

1) The amount of people unlawfully killed by guns in the USA in X year.
2) The amount of people saved by guns in the USA in X year.

If #2 had a higher result than #1 you would have no problems with me stating that my opinion on guns is that they should be carried by everyone because this statistic proves that they are saving people 24/7 and I have never held a gun.

It is only when people take the opposing view to yours that you feel like people should shut up about the topic if they haven't experienced it.

If I were to think that military was great and that their funding should be increased while having never been in the military, you would be fine with me holding that opinion. But if I say that the military should be de-funded and the money should be used in more important ways, I need to shut up because I have never been in the military so my opinion means nothing.

It's called no-platforming and it is exactly what SJW's do to Republicans all of the time.

This is like someone going onto that thread where people are talking about abortion and saying "All of you people who are against abortion need to shut up because you have never experienced the pain of it yourself. I have and that means that my opinion must be correct." You would not take them seriously.
"People need to shut up about feminism if they aren't a woman because they will have never experienced cat-calling."
I hear that all of the time and it sounds just as silly as when you say that people can't have an opinion on guns unless they have physically fired one themselves.

It is an easy way of avoiding the argument and it can be applied to pretty much any issue fallaciously.

I mean I could just as easily turn this around and tell you that your opinion is wrong because you are too invested in guns being legal to be unbiased about it. You enjoy guns too much and your ability to view this logically is clouded by that fact.

"Obviously a soldier is going to love the military and do anything to protect it."
"Obviously a police officer thinks that black lives matter is wrong."
"Obviously someone who owns guns wants them to be kept legal."

It doesn't work and it doesn't make sense, please stop doing it.

I don't think you fully understand the issues. US news (and I'm sure all around the world) puts a mass broadcast on mass murders, and murders in general with firearms so people form these skewed opinions based on what the media presents. I was talking to a guy and he asked me if I was scared living in America with all these shootings. Do shootings happen a lot? Yeah, but you're talking about 1 country that has the same amount of land and people as multiple countries in the middle east and grouping it all into one.

Basically if you don't have experience with firearms then you can't accurately portray what they are about. All you have is paper statistics that don't really mean much? What do I mean by that? Well I'm sure most of us here are adults and are in an issue when it comes to money, some of us have sat down and tried to figure it out right? So we sit down and budget, OK I make X amount per week, I spend X on fuel, etc. etc. etc. right? Then you come to this conclusion that you are able to save a BUNCH of money, yet it never really works out when you try it. What you see on paper vs what you see IRL never really meshes. When looking up statistics on ANYTHING, there are multiple sides to the story. With firearms you can take one thing, for example the death toll, and you will hear two different stories. liberals will say it's too many deaths and so many people shouldn't be dieing. Pro 2A people will say the 16k people who get shot and die each year is such a minuscule amount of people that it should not justify taking firearms away. What you get from the media and news channels is often the liberal side, people who don't know much about firearms but look at it on paper and want to take away guns.

With that said, you absolutely should have experience with firearms before judging them. Think about it this way, you are getting second hand info from the internet. Walk into a court and tell the judge that so and so SAID this guy killed the other guy. It won't work because you don't have the first hand knowledge, right?