Mr. President, do NOT ban assault weapons!

[Terruana]

I wonder if you'd feel the same if you weren't able to physically defend yourself due to disability or old age?

Thus the value of a self-defense weapon.

And how would you use the gun if you had no arms?

[Washington Resistance Army]

No it isn't. While there's more restrictions than I would like nowadays I'm still largely free to do what I want if I don't infringe on the rights of others. I would say we should entirely remove victimless crimes from being against the law though.

Free access to guns is impacting on other people's right to life, so...

So remove free access to guns from those who infringe on the rights of others.

[AC1DTOPIA]

Well? How many mass killings has Australia had since Port Arthur?

See for yourself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _Australia
And if that's really not a good enough source, just look at the provided sources you lazy, lazy human.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Thus the value of a self-defense weapon.

And how would you use the gun if you had no arms?

Like this.

[Terruana]

Shooting targets benefits no-one except your own ego. Hunting animals is hardly a neccessity anymore. Why are these things considered more important than human life?

Target shooting is a social sport that's a lot of fun when you're competing with friends. Hunting animals can be necessary, as some animals don't have enough natural predators left to keep the population in check (leading to motor vehicle accidents, disease, property damage, and starvation among the animals).

What is YOUR suggestion to reduce firearms violence, while still protecting people's rights?

My solution is that people's right to own guns doesn't outweigh other people's right to life, so owning guns should be completely illegal. Owning things does not outweigh someone's existence.

[Terruana]

And how would you use the gun if you had no arms?

Like this.

Now try it with severe arthritis in every joint

[Miarie]

Gun control won't stop murderers from using the black market to buy guns.

It doesn't have to prevent it entirely. If even one life is saved by stopping people from legally purchasing guns, that would be worth the trade of stopping people from owning a piece of hardware with no neccessary purposes.

So basically, even if gun control does a half-assed job at preventing crime but still disarms law abiding citizens who now need guns for protection, it's a success?

Eating more than once a month is also unnecessary, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good thing to do.
Just because something is unnecessary doesn't mean it is harmful in any way.

[Kernen]

No it isn't. While there's more restrictions than I would like nowadays I'm still largely free to do what I want if I don't infringe on the rights of others. I would say we should entirely remove victimless crimes from being against the law though.

Free access to guns is impacting on other people's right to life, so...

No it isn't. Misuse of firearms might cause that, but their use by lawful gun owners doesn't have more than a statistically insignificant impact.

I could apply this logic to private transportation, which takes the lives of more people a year than firearms could dream of doing. We could ban cars and require all people use public transportation to get around. You don't need a car to travel. You don't need a car to survive. However, that alternative unduly restricts the freedoms of people, which does not outweigh the lives saved.

[Vassenor]

Stripping their rights because of an extreme minority's abuse of those rights is absurd.

Even if it wasn't, it's still against the very principals of freedoms to restrict the freedom of many over the crimes of a few.

The Muslim population of the USA says hi.

[Terruana]

It doesn't have to prevent it entirely. If even one life is saved by stopping people from legally purchasing guns, that would be worth the trade of stopping people from owning a piece of hardware with no neccessary purposes.

So basically, even if gun control does a half-assed job at preventing crime but still disarms law abiding citizens who now need guns for protection, it's a success?

Eating more than once a month is also unnecessary, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good thing to do.
Just because something is unnecessary doesn't mean it is harmful in any way.

If it stops even one person being killed in gun-related violence, then yeah, it's worth stopping people being able to own guns.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Target shooting is a social sport that's a lot of fun when you're competing with friends. Hunting animals can be necessary, as some animals don't have enough natural predators left to keep the population in check (leading to motor vehicle accidents, disease, property damage, and starvation among the animals).

What is YOUR suggestion to reduce firearms violence, while still protecting people's rights?

My solution is that people's right to own guns doesn't outweigh other people's right to life, so owning guns should be completely illegal. Owning things does not outweigh someone's existence.

Good to see you want to make 100,000,000 people criminals.

Like this.

Now try it with severe arthritis in every joint

Not very hard, there's small very lightweight guns out there. One of my best friends has severe arthritis (it runs in his family) and shoots just fine.

Stripping their rights because of an extreme minority's abuse of those rights is absurd.

Even if it wasn't, it's still against the very principals of freedoms to restrict the freedom of many over the crimes of a few.

The Muslim population of the USA says hi.

Pretty sure Kernen doesn't support discriminating against Muslims

[Terruana]

Free access to guns is impacting on other people's right to life, so...

No it isn't. Misuse of firearms might cause that, but their use by lawful gun owners doesn't have more than a statistically insignificant impact.

I could apply this logic to private transportation, which takes the lives of more people a year than firearms could dream of doing. We could ban cars and require all people use public transportation to get around. You don't need a car to travel. You don't need a car to survive. However, that alternative unduly restricts the freedoms of people, which does not outweigh the lives saved.

James Holmes bought his weapons legally, which is enough of an impact in my book to justify taking guns away from everyone, considering they have no essential purpose other than recreation.

And the difference between cars and guns is that a) not everywhere is accessible by public transport and b) guns are literally designed to kill and serve no other essential purpose (sport is not an essential purpose)

[Kernen]

Thus the value of a self-defense weapon.

And how would you use the gun if you had no arms?

How does that extreme situation negate the value of a firearm in self defense?

Stripping their rights because of an extreme minority's abuse of those rights is absurd.

Even if it wasn't, it's still against the very principals of freedoms to restrict the freedom of many over the crimes of a few.

The Muslim population of the USA says hi.

Are you implying that I'm somehow in support of the abuse of the Muslim population? Do you have evidence that that is something I want to perpetuate? There's no need to malign my position. Agreeing with gun rights doesn't mean I agree with racist and bigoted treatment of Muslims.

[Terruana]

My solution is that people's right to own guns doesn't outweigh other people's right to life, so owning guns should be completely illegal. Owning things does not outweigh someone's existence.

Good to see you want to make 100,000,000 people criminals.

Now try it with severe arthritis in every joint

Not very hard, there's small very lightweight guns out there. One of my best friends has severe arthritis (it runs in his family) and shoots just fine.

100,000,000 are only criminals if they refuse to give up their guns. And if they do, they are criminals, so...

And yes, clearly if "one of your best friends" can do it, that means everyone with arthritis is impaired to an equal or lesser degree.

[Vassenor]

And how would you use the gun if you had no arms?

How does that extreme situation negate the value of a firearm in self defense?

The Muslim population of the USA says hi.

Are you implying that I'm somehow in support of the abuse of the Muslim population? Do you have evidence that that is something I want to perpetuate? There's no need to malign my position. Agreeing with gun rights doesn't mean I agree with racist and bigoted treatment of Muslims.

I am not saying you do. I am saying there is a marked correlation between the two positions; a tendency for people to argue that gun owners should not be stripped of their rights because of a few bad eggs while also saying that Muslims should.

[Terruana]

And how would you use the gun if you had no arms?

How does that extreme situation negate the value of a firearm in self defense?

The Muslim population of the USA says hi.

Are you implying that I'm somehow in support of the abuse of the Muslim population? Do you have evidence that that is something I want to perpetuate? There's no need to malign my position. Agreeing with gun rights doesn't mean I agree with racist and bigoted treatment of Muslims.

Guns have no use in self defence.

[Washington Resistance Army]

100,000,000 are only criminals if they refuse to give up their guns. And if they do, they are criminals, so...

I wouldn't give up my guns, and most of the gun owners on this forum wouldn't either. Why do you want to make us criminals?

[Washington Resistance Army]

How does that extreme situation negate the value of a firearm in self defense?

Are you implying that I'm somehow in support of the abuse of the Muslim population? Do you have evidence that that is something I want to perpetuate? There's no need to malign my position. Agreeing with gun rights doesn't mean I agree with racist and bigoted treatment of Muslims.

Guns have no use in self defence.

SCOTUS disagrees, and given even the lowest estimates for defensive gun uses are still six times higher than the total amount of gun homicides you're wrong.

[Kernen]

No it isn't. Misuse of firearms might cause that, but their use by lawful gun owners doesn't have more than a statistically insignificant impact.

I could apply this logic to private transportation, which takes the lives of more people a year than firearms could dream of doing. We could ban cars and require all people use public transportation to get around. You don't need a car to travel. You don't need a car to survive. However, that alternative unduly restricts the freedoms of people, which does not outweigh the lives saved.

James Holmes bought his weapons legally, which is enough of an impact in my book to justify taking guns away from everyone, considering they have no essential purpose other than recreation.

And the difference between cars and guns is that a) not everywhere is accessible by public transport and b) guns are literally designed to kill and serve no other essential purpose (sport is not an essential purpose)

You're welcome to believe that. The Supreme Court of the US disagrees with your position. Holmes represents a statistical insignificance among lawful gun owners. That's on par with making transgendered people unable to use the bathroom of their gender on the grounds that some might assault somebody. It's idiotic.

I don't expect to change your mind, but I'm always happy to show you the flaws in your reasoning.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Thus the value of a self-defense weapon.

And how would you use the gun if you had no arms?

When I took the NRA Basic Pistol course in 2006, there was a man there that was missing his right hand (I can't remember if it was a birth defect, or an injury that cost him his hand). He was an avid skeet shooter, and did ok with a pistol.

A friend of mine has a disability where his legs don't work and he's stuck in a wheelchair, and could make him a target. He has a pistol, not only for self defense but for target shooting.

[Terruana]

100,000,000 are only criminals if they refuse to give up their guns. And if they do, they are criminals, so...

I wouldn't give up my guns, and most of the gun owners on this forum wouldn't either. Why do you want to make us criminals?

If the law changed to make gun ownership illegal, and you refused to give up your guns, you would be making yourself a criminal. Nothing to do with me.

[Terruana]

Guns have no use in self defence.

SCOTUS disagrees, and given even the lowest estimates for defensive gun uses are still six times higher than the total amount of gun homicides you're wrong.

Nothing you have said has disproved the analysis in the article I linked to.

[Terruana]

James Holmes bought his weapons legally, which is enough of an impact in my book to justify taking guns away from everyone, considering they have no essential purpose other than recreation.

And the difference between cars and guns is that a) not everywhere is accessible by public transport and b) guns are literally designed to kill and serve no other essential purpose (sport is not an essential purpose)

You're welcome to believe that. The Supreme Court of the US disagrees with your position. Holmes represents a statistical insignificance among lawful gun owners. That's on par with making transgendered people unable to use the bathroom of their gender on the grounds that some might assault somebody. It's idiotic.

I don't expect to change your mind, but I'm always happy to show you the flaws in your reasoning.

Clearly that would be the first time a supreme court judgement was wrong then.
It's not really the same though, unless you can show me multiple example of transgendered people actually using the bathroom of their gender to assault someone. One is based on fear and supposition, the other is based on actual events that occurred. There's a significant difference.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I wouldn't give up my guns, and most of the gun owners on this forum wouldn't either. Why do you want to make us criminals?

If the law changed to make gun ownership illegal, and you refused to give up your guns, you would be making yourself a criminal. Nothing to do with me.

No it would have everything to do with people like you, and I'm shocked you can't see how.

SCOTUS disagrees, and given even the lowest estimates for defensive gun uses are still six times higher than the total amount of gun homicides you're wrong.

Nothing you have said has disproved the analysis in the article I linked to.

If that analysis is right why haven't gun deaths increased as carry laws have become more lax? Gun crime is at the lowest point since the 1950's and more people carry now more than ever.

[Kernen]

How does that extreme situation negate the value of a firearm in self defense?

Are you implying that I'm somehow in support of the abuse of the Muslim population? Do you have evidence that that is something I want to perpetuate? There's no need to malign my position. Agreeing with gun rights doesn't mean I agree with racist and bigoted treatment of Muslims.

I am not saying you do. I am saying there is a marked correlation between the two positions; a tendency for people to argue that gun owners should not be stripped of their rights because of a few bad eggs while also saying that Muslims should.

Which is a shame. I always wished that minority groups like LGBT and Muslims in America should avail themselves of their second amendment rights. I get why many don't, but I'd rather see the bigots as the ones on the receiving end of a gun for once.

How does that extreme situation negate the value of a firearm in self defense?

Are you implying that I'm somehow in support of the abuse of the Muslim population? Do you have evidence that that is something I want to perpetuate? There's no need to malign my position. Agreeing with gun rights doesn't mean I agree with racist and bigoted treatment of Muslims.

Guns have no use in self defence.

I'll take that risk. Better to have a chance, at least. I believe that article doesn't account for nonlethal DGUs, too.