That’s correct, unidentified commenter with unsourced, detailless story gif.
 
You see, occasionally, a homeowner with a gun will repel an invader, or a person on the street will stop a mugging with a gun.
 
However, far more often, the easy access to guns has made many other home invasions or muggings much deadlier for the victim, and in the meantime increased homicide, suicide and accident rates significantly in the same area.
 
You see, the State Legislature does not in fact pass laws based on what some particular citizen had for breakfast that day. They pass laws based on the laws’ effect on their state as a whole. And on the whole, guns kill people. A lot of people. Very effectively. It’s, you know, what they’re made to do. Why would you expect they would do anything else?

@mathprofbrony  
Guns don’t save lives you say?
 

@Rostam: I’m not proposing legislation based on hurt feelings here. We have numbers. I kind of work with them professionally, you know? This is actuarially pretty simple. You use a proxy for gun ownership and you compare homicide and suicide rates. The differential effect is enormous.
 
Cars will come with an accident rate, but they also improve quality of life, to the point that car ownership does not correlate to either a positive or a negative significant change in death rates in a large population in a Western nation. Guns do have a measurable effect, and it makes things worse – they do not, on net, save lives, not from criminals, not from wolves, nothing. On net, guns kill. This is the kind of data a legislature works with. See? Simple.
 
Finally, you seem to be under the impression that gun control equals taking your guns away. The Second Amendment, as elucidated by Heller, is pretty clear that we can’t do that. However, gun locks, storage requirements, waiting periods, strict licensing requirements, and strong enforcement of background checks all have significant improving effects on death rates.

Murder is really just applied Schrodinger’s Cat applied once you think about it.  
:P

Maybe people should stop blaming guns for murder.
 
And just because you have an irrational fear of weapons doesn’t mean everyone is going to give up a right because guns hurt your feelings.

@Math
 
Just like throwing knives in a neighborhood and cars too.
 
Tools that can kill will kill.

DONT upload shit

@Impossible9  
Yep. You said it. You just stated my opinion exactly.

Ohhhhhh….. noooooo……..

Guns don’t kill people, Joe Billy-Bob MacLeod who doesn’t know the first thing about firearms but wants to play cowboy does.
 
And just so we’re clear, I’m against outlawing guns. I think you have the right to have a gun in the US, as long as you’re not insane, know how to use it, and can keep it safe so insane people and criminals won’t steal it or disarm you. Because even though most school shootings and violence happens with stolen guns, who do you think they stole it from? The police?
 
But no, guns don’t make you superman and if someone bursts into the room with a machine gun, you’re going to save your own pussy ass, especially if you’re such a coward that you need to go everywhere armed with your Colt 1911, which by the way isn’t going to save you.
 
And Tara, that sword cuts both ways. Making something illegal doesn’t make it go away. And especially not in the US, where the hillbilly bunch, no longer having the legal right to own firearms will get their penis substitutes from the black market, which is one less income source for the federal government, and an expansion of a black market previously only used by actual criminals.
 
It’s almost like we shouldn’t legislate our inane tastes or something.

Tara?  
Wat are you doin  
Tara  
Stahp

Of course guns kill people.
 
You toss a hundred guns in a neighborhood, you will have more homicides and suicides than a comparable neighborhood with a hundred fewer guns.
 
That’s the sense in which guns kill people, and it’s the sense in which laws are made: the top-level view. This wouldn’t be hard – it certainly seems to be obvious to every other developed country in the world – if we didn’t have a wealthy, entrenched gun-sellers lobby posing as a grassroots organization, namely the NRA.

@Nightweaver20xx  
What about people who just want to protect their families, and/or businesses, or hunt for food?

@Beau It’s already mandatory to do a background check when you try to buy a firearm, read what the Brady Bill is all about. All these shootings you are reading about lately? All those guns have been stolen, and used by insane (not autistic, INSANE) people.

I don’t want to see a flamewar today, thank you very much.

As far as I’m concerned, the only people who should have a right to own a firearm are police and the military. Nobody else needs one. Period. /thread

I think what America really needs in gun CONTROL, not removal. An AR-15 or a Bushmaster M4 is not for hunting or for self defense, it’s made for killing.

@BP  
Thats what you get when you let Criminals vote and get married.

@Beua Skunky  
“I think gun-control is pointless, because criminals”
 
plz dont.

Autism and guns makes me think about the tabs in someones bowser who put a screenshot of it to show a porn post on Laurens Twitter. Could it be that Tara seen this screenshot?

UK, Japan, France, Germany, Sweden, etc, all have stricter gun laws than the US and, shockingly, don’t have a mass shooting every month. The two might be related. Also, they’ve managed to keep the guns out of the hands of most criminals and still take down most criminals without the use of guns. The US is the only first world nation that thinks letting any Tom, Dick, and Harry having a loaded gun is a good thing.

Why do people think that gun control means all guns banned? It means that it would be more difficult to get a hold of guns legally. Police would still have guns. You could probably own a pistol but not a full automatic assault rifle.
 
And no one expects criminals to suddenly stop using weapons. That is just stupid.

I will admit though, I think we should do background checks on people who wish to buy firearms. IMO if you shoot somebody, or get charged with armed robbery, you should not be allowed to have firearms, ‘cause you abused that freedom.
 
But I’m against making guns completely illegal. I think that’s foolish. I read somewhere that some other countries that did that, their crime-rates actually went up.

Honestly, gun-control discussions tend to lead to flame wars. So I’d rather not see those on this site personally.
 
To be honest though, I think gun-control is pointless, because criminals aren’t going to follow the law. They’ll somehow smuggle, or obtain guns illegally, so then only they’ll have them, and the honest people won’t be able to protect themselves. (Think about this, what will cops do if they go up against an armed criminal without guns.)  
No offense, but I get sick of this typical Hollywood mentality that “guns are the purest form of evil.” What about other weapons?  
Criminals will just use other weapons to kill/threaten people with. We might as well outlaw knives to. Those kill people, as well.
 
My brother-in-law (who’s a hunter, and such, I jokingly call him a “redneck”) always keeps his guns locked in a safe so his kids don’t mess with them, and he educates his kids that they’re not toys, and shouldn’t be played with, and such. When I was little, I knew not to mess with guns, knives, and stuff. People should educate their kids more, rather then put the blame on other things.

There are potentional serial killers everywhere.  
But in the US they have better access to what they need.  
Without guns they would end up doing only suizide, or at least, killing a lot fewer people.