USA is a wery dangerous country for their own citizens.And the most violent policeforce with wery low education compared to other countries.A trafficstop can end up in hospital because the police loose the mind as soon someone don't want to answer or don't want to shove the id.

The first and forth amendment get violated every second.I look in YouTube everyday how crazy it is.About weapon laws i mean the people wearing a rifle in public because they can tells me that these kind of people should get a psychiatric evaluation.The trespass laws give people right to shoot u even if u go inside the signs with no plans to harme anyone.One guy from my country get killed by the police because he forgot his keys to his apartment and climb thru his own window..the police who killed him get sentenced many years.Another guy wanted to meet his fiance on a surprise visit and knocked on the window at her parents home ended up get killed by his own father in law because he get shot thru the window.

7 minutes ago, norsurin said:

USA is a wery dangerous country for their own citizens.And the most violent policeforce with wery low education compared to other countries.A trafficstop can end up in hospital because the police loose the mind as soon someone don't want to answer or don't want to shove the id.

The first and forth amendment get violated every second.I look in YouTube everyday how crazy it is.About weapon laws i mean the people wearing a rifle in public because they can tells me that these kind of people should get a psychiatric evaluation.The trespass laws give people right to shoot u even if u go inside the signs with no plans to harme anyone.One guy from my country get killed by the police because he forgot his keys to his apartment and climb thru his own window..the police who killed him get sentenced many years.Another guy wanted to meet his fiance on a surprise visit and knocked on the window at her parents home ended up get killed by his own father in law because he get shot thru the window.

Dude watched too much TV

2 minutes ago, norsurin said:

USA is a wery dangerous country for their own citizens.And the most violent policeforce with wery low education compared to other countries.A trafficstop can end up in hospital because the police loose the mind as soon someone don't want to answer or don't want to shove the id.

The first and forth amendment get violated every second.I look in YouTube everyday how crazy it is.About weapon laws i mean the people wearing a rifle in public because they can tells me that these kind of people should get a psychiatric evaluation.The trespass laws give people right to shoot u even if u go inside the signs with no plans to harme anyone.One guy from my country get killed by the police because he forgot his keys to his apartment and climb thru his own window..the police who killed him get sentenced many years.Another guy wanted to meet his fiance on a surprise visit and knocked on the window at her parents home ended up get killed by his own father in law because he get shot thru the window.

I lived there for 62 years, and have visited yearly since, will be moving back soon. never saw any real violence, living close to NYC and San Antonio. all those years, out and about, in many neighborhoods where violence happened a lot. I will never fear those carrying weapons as they'

re the ones wanting it safe there. I worry about those who are hiding guns and looking to kill, rape or rob innocents. Yes, some police are corrupt,trigger happy and controlling, but I'm thinking more here are, at least as far as the corruption and controlling.

You get pulled over, you show your ID. Unless you have something to hide you won't have a problem. The police also have to worry about being shot, as it happens all the time.

Youtube videos posted show but a fraction of day to day life there with the millions.

6 hours ago, norsurin said:

USA is a wery dangerous country for their own citizens.And the most violent policeforce with wery low education compared to other countries.A trafficstop can end up in hospital because the police loose the mind as soon someone don't want to answer or don't want to shove the id.

The first and forth amendment get violated every second.I look in YouTube everyday how crazy it is.About weapon laws i mean the people wearing a rifle in public because they can tells me that these kind of people should get a psychiatric evaluation.The trespass laws give people right to shoot u even if u go inside the signs with no plans to harme anyone.One guy from my country get killed by the police because he forgot his keys to his apartment and climb thru his own window..the police who killed him get sentenced many years.Another guy wanted to meet his fiance on a surprise visit and knocked on the window at her parents home ended up get killed by his own father in law because he get shot thru the window.

I think you're taking a handful of bad incidents and using them to describe an entire country.

America absolutely has problems. There are bad police officers. There are wrongful shootings. There are cases where rights get violated. Nobody serious denies that.

But watching YouTube videos of police encounters all day is not the same thing as understanding what happens across an entire country. YouTube is literally designed to show the most shocking and controversial incidents because that's what gets clicks. You also seem to be mixing up several different issues.

Openly carrying a rifle doesn't mean someone is mentally ill. Millions of Americans own firearms and never commit a crime. Whether you agree with open carry or not, exercising a legal right is not evidence of a psychiatric problem. As for trespassing laws, that's not how they work. In most places in the U.S., you cannot simply shoot someone because they stepped onto your property or ignored a sign. The legal standards for self-defense are generally much more complicated than that.

The examples you gave are tragic, but every country can produce tragic stories. I can find stories from Europe of people being stabbed, run over, attacked by terrorists or killed because of mistakes. That doesn't mean I would describe all of Europe as a dangerous place.

The reality is that America is a huge country with over 340 million people, 18,000 law enforcement agencies, and hundreds of millions of police interactions every year. If you only look at the worst incidents, you're going to get a very distorted picture.

It's fair to criticize problems in the U.S. It's not fair to pretend YouTube clips represent everyday life for most Americans.

8 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Worse? Ya mean killed! How many people had handguns when you were a kid? Only cops.

no, we had hand guns too!! I had a 22 pistol that I kept in the glovebox of my truck, which also had

a shotgun in the back window.

20 hours ago, ericthai said:

I think you're putting way too much emphasis on the number of guns and not enough on the people using them.

No - I'm putting emphasis on the tens of thousands of people people each year who wouldn't have died and a magnitude more who wouldn't have suffered life changing injuries if the US had adequate gun controls.

4 minutes ago, ericthai said:

no, we had hand guns too!! I had a 22 pistol that I kept in the glovebox of my truck, which also had

a shotgun in the back window.

What do you have in Thailand - y'know - considering these guns are so essential to your well being...

20 hours ago, ericthai said:

If the number of guns was the main factor, then simply counting guns should predict violence rates pretty accurately. It doesn't.

Actually, it does.

Countries with higher firearm availability generally experience higher firearm death rates, and the United States is an extreme outlier in both gun ownership and firearm mortality among developed nations.

The predictable response is that if guns were less available, violence would simply switch to knives or other weapons.

But that theory isn't well supported by the evidence.

Countries with stricter gun laws do not generally exhibit dramatically higher knife homicide rates to compensate. In fact, the US has a knife homicide rate that is broadly comparable to, and often higher than, that of England and Wales.

So while guns are clearly not the only factor, neither are they irrelevant.

The "America is different" argument is also revealing. Every country has gangs, drugs, mental illness, social dysfunction and violent offenders.

What America has, in addition to those problems, is vastly greater firearm availability and vastly higher firearm mortality.

At some point, dismissing that correlation becomes harder than explaining it.

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Actually, it does.

Countries with higher firearm availability generally experience higher firearm death rates, and the United States is an extreme outlier in both gun ownership and firearm mortality among developed nations.

The predictable response is that if guns were less available, violence would simply switch to knives or other weapons.

But that theory isn't well supported by the evidence.

Countries with stricter gun laws do not generally exhibit dramatically higher knife homicide rates to compensate. In fact, the US has a knife homicide rate that is broadly comparable to, and often higher than, that of England and Wales.

So while guns are clearly not the only factor, neither are they irrelevant.

The "America is different" argument is also revealing. Every country has gangs, drugs, mental illness, social dysfunction and violent offenders.

What America has, in addition to those problems, is vastly greater firearm availability and vastly higher firearm mortality.

At some point, dismissing that correlation becomes harder than explaining it.

So, while guns are clearly not the only factor, taking them from law abiding citizens is much easier than addressing the root causes.

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So, while guns are clearly not the only factor, taking them from law abiding citizens is much easier than addressing the root causes.

That's a false choice. Why does it have to be one or the other?

You continue to approach this as though it's a binary problem.

We can address gangs, repeat offenders, drugs, mental health issues and social dysfunction while also implementing sensible firearm regulation. In fact, that's exactly what many developed countries attempt to do.

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that because guns are not the sole cause of violence, that the focus ought to be on solving society issues - without addressing gun control because of 'rights' (the Second Amendment).

To borrow one of your favourite forms of argument; equivalence: seatbelts don't prevent reckless driving, but we still require them because they reduce the consequences when things go wrong.

Firearm regulation can be viewed in much the same way. Address the root causes by all means. Tackle gangs, drugs, repeat offenders, mental health and social breakdown. But also address firearm regulation and the extraordinary number of guns in circulation.

The two approaches are complementary, not contradictory.

One seeks to reduce the causes of violence. The other seeks to reduce the lethality of the outcome.

Given the scale of firearm deaths in the United States, it is difficult to argue that both don't deserve serious attention.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

That's a false choice. Why does it have to be one or the other?

You continue to approach this as though it's a binary problem.

We can address gangs, repeat offenders, drugs, mental health issues and social dysfunction while also implementing sensible firearm regulation. In fact, that's exactly what many developed countries attempt to do.

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that because guns are not the sole cause of violence, that the focus ought to be on solving society issues - without addressing gun control because of 'rights' (the Second Amendment).

To borrow one of your favourite forms of argument; equivalence: seatbelts don't prevent reckless driving, but we still require them because they reduce the consequences when things go wrong.

Firearm regulation can be viewed in much the same way. Address the root causes by all means. Tackle gangs, drugs, repeat offenders, mental health and social breakdown. But also address firearm regulation and the extraordinary number of guns in circulation.

The two approaches are complementary, not contradictory.

One seeks to reduce the causes of violence. The other seeks to reduce the lethality of the outcome.

Given the scale of firearm deaths in the United States, it is difficult to argue that both don't deserve serious attention.

So why is all the focus on taking guns away?

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So why is all the focus on taking guns away?

Only the government should be entrusted with firearms for the safety and security of our society.

On 6/10/2026 at 3:52 AM, norsurin said:

USA is a wery dangerous country for their own citizens.And the most violent policeforce with wery low education compared to other countries.A trafficstop can end up in hospital because the police loose the mind as soon someone don't want to answer or don't want to shove the id.

The first and forth amendment get violated every second.I look in YouTube everyday how crazy it is.About weapon laws i mean the people wearing a rifle in public because they can tells me that these kind of people should get a psychiatric evaluation.The trespass laws give people right to shoot u even if u go inside the signs with no plans to harme anyone.One guy from my country get killed by the police because he forgot his keys to his apartment and climb thru his own window..the police who killed him get sentenced many years.Another guy wanted to meet his fiance on a surprise visit and knocked on the window at her parents home ended up get killed by his own father in law because he get shot thru the window.

YouTube offers a powerful way to explore a country from the comfort of your home, unlocking insights that may surprise you. For instance, I learned that Thailand is solely defined by the vibrant Walking Street in Pattaya without ever stepping a foot in the country.

7 minutes ago, nick supreme said:

Only the government should be entrusted with firearms for the safety and security of our society.

And all the rich people of course. They all get staff with guns...

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

That's a false choice. Why does it have to be one or the other?

You continue to approach this as though it's a binary problem.

We can address gangs, repeat offenders, drugs, mental health issues and social dysfunction while also implementing sensible firearm regulation. In fact, that's exactly what many developed countries attempt to do.

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that because guns are not the sole cause of violence, that the focus ought to be on solving society issues - without addressing gun control because of 'rights' (the Second Amendment).

To borrow one of your favourite forms of argument; equivalence: seatbelts don't prevent reckless driving, but we still require them because they reduce the consequences when things go wrong.

Firearm regulation can be viewed in much the same way. Address the root causes by all means. Tackle gangs, drugs, repeat offenders, mental health and social breakdown. But also address firearm regulation and the extraordinary number of guns in circulation.

The two approaches are complementary, not contradictory.

One seeks to reduce the causes of violence. The other seeks to reduce the lethality of the outcome.

Given the scale of firearm deaths in the United States, it is difficult to argue that both don't deserve serious attention.

To be clear, I would be more receptive to gun control, if the people wanting to take the guns seemed to be at all concerned about the existing laws, including gun laws.

Why is it someone commits a crime with a gun, and if they do not actually shoot anyone, they're often released ROR, plea down and get probation?

And why is all the focus on "assault rifles", or any long-gun when (I believe) over 95% of gun deaths are from hand-guns?

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

To be clear, I would be more receptive to gun control, if the people wanting to take the guns seemed to be at all concerned about the existing laws, including gun laws.

Agreed - but your arguement seems to be... "they only want our guns, so I'm going to resist" which is rather myopice and presumpotive - the respo

Agreed. Existing laws should be enforced properly, including gun laws. I don't think many people would disagree with that.

What I struggle with is that your argument often seems to boil down to: "they only want our guns, so I'm going to resist"

That feels rather myopic.

It's entirely possible to support stronger enforcement of existing laws and support additional measures.

The two positions are not mutually exclusive.

The response to "we should enforce existing laws better" shouldn't automatically be "therefore no new laws are ever justified"... Guns need to be controlled, heavily regulated, even banned, alongside all of the other measures to cut uncesseeary deaths whether accidental, suicide, violence, socio-economic factors etc.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why is it someone commits a crime with a gun, and if they do not actually shoot anyone, they're often released ROR, plea down and get probation?

Thats part of the problem.

Someone illegally carrying, brandishing, threatening with, or using a firearm during the commission of a crime should face serious consequences.

But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

If your argument is that existing gun laws should be enforced more rigorously, I'd agree.

If your argument is that because some offenders receive lenient treatment, therefore no additional firearm regulations should ever be considered, then the logic falls apart.

Those are two separate issues.

A rational society should be capable of enforcing existing laws properly, punishing repeat offenders appropriately, and debating whether the legal framework itself could be improved.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And why is all the focus on "assault rifles", or any long-gun when (I believe) over 95% of gun deaths are from hand-guns?

I'm not sure, to be honest. If the objective is to reduce firearm deaths, then handguns seem the more obvious place to focus. They account for the overwhelming majority of gun homicides, are easily concealed, easily carried, and are disproportionately associated with everyday criminal violence.

Personally, I'd be far more comfortable with tightly regulated ownership of hunting rifles and sporting firearms and a widespread public ban on handguns (open or concealed carry).

Likewise, I've yet to hear a compelling argument for ordinary civilians routinely carrying semi-automatic firearms in public. Hunting, sport shooting and collecting are one thing. Walking around armed with weapons designed for rapid, repeated fire is quite another.

If we're going to have an honest discussion about reducing gun deaths, it makes sense to focus on the firearms most commonly used to cause them and a civilian need to actually 'have them' in the first place.

IMO - Go for it - Regulate Rifles for Hunting and Sports (limited to non-auto), and ban all handguns, except for sports use (in tightly controlled environments and ban all use / storage at homes - only to be stored at Gun Clubs etc).

21 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

What do you have in Thailand - y'know - considering these guns are so essential to your well being...

I have a 38 - who said that guns are essential??

now you're getting emotional, thought we were have a discussion about guns in the US.

21 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Actually, it does.

Countries with higher firearm availability generally experience higher firearm death rates, and the United States is an extreme outlier in both gun ownership and firearm mortality among developed nations.

The predictable response is that if guns were less available, violence would simply switch to knives or other weapons.

But that theory isn't well supported by the evidence.

Countries with stricter gun laws do not generally exhibit dramatically higher knife homicide rates to compensate. In fact, the US has a knife homicide rate that is broadly comparable to, and often higher than, that of England and Wales.

So while guns are clearly not the only factor, neither are they irrelevant.

The "America is different" argument is also revealing. Every country has gangs, drugs, mental illness, social dysfunction and violent offenders.

What America has, in addition to those problems, is vastly greater firearm availability and vastly higher firearm mortality.

At some point, dismissing that correlation becomes harder than explaining it.

I don't think anyone is dismissing the correlation.

The U.S. has more guns and more firearm deaths than most developed countries. That's obvious.

What I'm questioning is whether that automatically means gun availability is the primary cause of the violence, or whether it's one factor among several.

You say every country has gangs, drugs, mental illness, social dysfunction and violent offenders, that's true.

But not every country has them to the same degree, in the same places or with the same cultural influences.

America also has some unique problems. We have cities where gang culture is glorified, where kids grow up around violence, where repeat offenders cycle through the system and where social media turns killers into celebrities overnight.

When I was growing up, guns were common. What wasn't common was kids wanting to shoot up schools, livestream attacks or become famous for committing murder.

Something changed, and I don't think the answer is simply that there are more guns.

To me, saying "America has more guns and more gun deaths" is the starting point of the discussion, not the end of it.

The question I'm interested in is why America seems to be producing more people willing to commit these acts in the first place.

Because if the root problem is cultural decay, gangs, mental health, broken families, drugs and the glorification of violence, then focusing primarily on the gun may reduce some outcomes without ever addressing the reason those outcomes are happening.

That's why I keep coming back to the people and the culture. Guns may affect the severity of violence, but they don't explain why someone decided to commit violence in the first place.

5 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

That's a false choice. Why does it have to be one or the other?

You continue to approach this as though it's a binary problem.

We can address gangs, repeat offenders, drugs, mental health issues and social dysfunction while also implementing sensible firearm regulation. In fact, that's exactly what many developed countries attempt to do.

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that because guns are not the sole cause of violence, that the focus ought to be on solving society issues - without addressing gun control because of 'rights' (the Second Amendment).

To borrow one of your favourite forms of argument; equivalence: seatbelts don't prevent reckless driving, but we still require them because they reduce the consequences when things go wrong.

Firearm regulation can be viewed in much the same way. Address the root causes by all means. Tackle gangs, drugs, repeat offenders, mental health and social breakdown. But also address firearm regulation and the extraordinary number of guns in circulation.

The two approaches are complementary, not contradictory.

One seeks to reduce the causes of violence. The other seeks to reduce the lethality of the outcome.

Given the scale of firearm deaths in the United States, it is difficult to argue that both don't deserve serious attention.

I don't disagree that you can work on multiple problems at once. The question is where the line gets drawn.

Using your seatbelt analogy, we require seatbelts because they don't fundamentally change what a car is or prevent ordinary people from using one.

(FYI: I looked at a 26 chevy last week, they now have it that the seatbelt must be plugged in to be able to put the truck in drive or reverse)

But let's take the logic a step further.

Cars kill tens of thousands of Americans every year. If reducing deaths is the primary goal, we could mandate speed limiters on every vehicle and cap them at 30 mph. We'd almost certainly save a lot of lives.

The reason we don't do that isn't because we don't care about safety. It's because we balance safety against practicality, freedom and the legitimate uses of the thing being regulated.

That's the part that often gets skipped in gun debates.

Nobody disputes that fewer guns might reduce some firearm deaths. The question is what restrictions are justified, what rights are affected, whether criminals will follow those restrictions and what unintended consequences come with them.

3 hours ago, nick supreme said:

Only the government should be entrusted with firearms for the safety and security of our society.

Only the government should have firearms" sounds great right up until you stop assuming the government will always be competent, honest, and acting in your best interests.

History is full of examples where governments abused their own citizens.

Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge killed roughly a quarter of its population. Iran is hardly a shining example of a government I'd trust with a complete monopoly on force.

I'm not saying civilian gun ownership would have magically prevented every dictatorship or atrocity. History is more complicated than that.

What I am saying is that "just trust the government" is not a very convincing argument when governments have been responsible for some of the worst mass killings in human history.

The whole point of limited government and constitutional rights is that power shouldn't be concentrated in one place and then accepted on blind faith.

Maybe your government is good today. The question is what happens if it isn't tomorrow.

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Agreed - but your arguement seems to be... "they only want our guns, so I'm going to resist" which is rather myopice and presumpotive - the respo

Agreed. Existing laws should be enforced properly, including gun laws. I don't think many people would disagree with that.

What I struggle with is that your argument often seems to boil down to: "they only want our guns, so I'm going to resist"

That feels rather myopic.

It's entirely possible to support stronger enforcement of existing laws and support additional measures.

The two positions are not mutually exclusive.

The response to "we should enforce existing laws better" shouldn't automatically be "therefore no new laws are ever justified"... Guns need to be controlled, heavily regulated, even banned, alongside all of the other measures to cut uncesseeary deaths whether accidental, suicide, violence, socio-economic factors etc.

Thats part of the problem.

Someone illegally carrying, brandishing, threatening with, or using a firearm during the commission of a crime should face serious consequences.

But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

If your argument is that existing gun laws should be enforced more rigorously, I'd agree.

If your argument is that because some offenders receive lenient treatment, therefore no additional firearm regulations should ever be considered, then the logic falls apart.

Those are two separate issues.

A rational society should be capable of enforcing existing laws properly, punishing repeat offenders appropriately, and debating whether the legal framework itself could be improved.

I'm not sure, to be honest. If the objective is to reduce firearm deaths, then handguns seem the more obvious place to focus. They account for the overwhelming majority of gun homicides, are easily concealed, easily carried, and are disproportionately associated with everyday criminal violence.

Personally, I'd be far more comfortable with tightly regulated ownership of hunting rifles and sporting firearms and a widespread public ban on handguns (open or concealed carry).

Likewise, I've yet to hear a compelling argument for ordinary civilians routinely carrying semi-automatic firearms in public. Hunting, sport shooting and collecting are one thing. Walking around armed with weapons designed for rapid, repeated fire is quite another.

If we're going to have an honest discussion about reducing gun deaths, it makes sense to focus on the firearms most commonly used to cause them and a civilian need to actually 'have them' in the first place.

IMO - Go for it - Regulate Rifles for Hunting and Sports (limited to non-auto), and ban all handguns, except for sports use (in tightly controlled environments and ban all use / storage at homes - only to be stored at Gun Clubs etc).

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.

You acknowledge gangs, repeat offenders, drugs, mental health issues, social breakdown, and cultural problems. I'd argue those are the actual disease. The gun is often just the tool.

If we had a society with fewer gangs, fewer repeat violent offenders, better mental health treatment, stronger families, and less glorification of violence, I think you'd see a huge reduction in gun deaths without changing a single gun law.

You also say guns should be heavily regulated or banned. But then you suggest people should only be able to store firearms at gun clubs.

That completely removes one of the primary reasons many people own firearms in the first place: self-defense.

A gun locked in a gun club doesn't help me if someone is trying to carjack me kicking in my door at 2 a.m. or trying to carjack me

And if all firearms are required to be stored in centralized locations, you've also made it incredibly easy for a future government to confiscate them if it decides to. Maybe you trust today's government. Not everyone assumes tomorrow's government will always be reasonable.

I'm also not convinced that continually adding new laws solves much when we often don't enforce the laws already on the books. If someone is illegally carrying a firearm, committing violent crimes, and repeatedly getting released back onto the street, that's a failure of enforcement, not a lack of legislation.

To me, the focus should be on the people causing the violence.

Put repeat violent offenders away. Go after gangs. Go after illegal trafficking. Improve mental health treatment. Strengthen families and communities.

If we don't address those things, we'll still have the same people willing to commit violence. We'll just be arguing over which tool they're using.

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

To be clear, I would be more receptive to gun control, if the people wanting to take the guns seemed to be at all concerned about the existing laws, including gun laws.

Why is it someone commits a crime with a gun, and if they do not actually shoot anyone, they're often released ROR, plea down and get probation?

And why is all the focus on "assault rifles", or any long-gun when (I believe) over 95% of gun deaths are from hand-guns?

I don't think the biggest problem is that convicted murderers are only getting a few years. In many cases they're serving decades or life sentences.

The problem is what happens before that.

How many times do we see stories where someone had multiple prior arrests, prior gun charges, probation violations, or a long criminal history and was still back on the street?

That's what frustrates people.

We keep talking about passing new laws while often failing to enforce the laws we already have against repeat violent offenders.

If someone is arrested for illegal gun possession, armed robbery, aggravated assault or repeated violent crimes, I'd rather see the justice system take that seriously before it turns into a homicide. To me, that's where a lot of the focus should be.

3 hours ago, ericthai said:

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.

You acknowledge gangs, repeat offenders, drugs, mental health issues, social breakdown, and cultural problems. I'd argue those are the actual disease. The gun is often just the tool.

If we had a society with fewer gangs, fewer repeat violent offenders, better mental health treatment, stronger families, and less glorification of violence, I think you'd see a huge reduction in gun deaths without changing a single gun law.

You also say guns should be heavily regulated or banned. But then you suggest people should only be able to store firearms at gun clubs.

That completely removes one of the primary reasons many people own firearms in the first place: self-defense.

A gun locked in a gun club doesn't help me if someone is trying to carjack me kicking in my door at 2 a.m. or trying to carjack me

And if all firearms are required to be stored in centralized locations, you've also made it incredibly easy for a future government to confiscate them if it decides to. Maybe you trust today's government. Not everyone assumes tomorrow's government will always be reasonable.

I'm also not convinced that continually adding new laws solves much when we often don't enforce the laws already on the books. If someone is illegally carrying a firearm, committing violent crimes, and repeatedly getting released back onto the street, that's a failure of enforcement, not a lack of legislation.

To me, the focus should be on the people causing the violence.

Put repeat violent offenders away. Go after gangs. Go after illegal trafficking. Improve mental health treatment. Strengthen families and communities.

If we don't address those things, we'll still have the same people willing to commit violence. We'll just be arguing over which tool they're using.

Sound logic. But the govt is addressing none of those issues. So removing handguns, semis & autos from the public would undoubtedly be a good first step.

That line about "self-defence" sounds real paranoid to me. How many have shot a marauding stranger? Do the kinds of situations you mention happen to ordinary people in the US? I don't think so, and I know some hundreds of Yanqs.

20 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

That line about "self-defence" sounds real paranoid to me. How many have shot a marauding stranger? Do the kinds of situations you mention happen to ordinary people in the US? I don't think so, and I know some hundreds of Yanqs.

I look at it the same way I look at insurance.

I have car insurance, health insurance, homeowners insurance, and hopefully I never need any of them.

A firearm for self-defense is similar. I don't own one because I expect someone to kick my door in tonight. I own one just in case the worst happens.

Is it an everyday occurrence? Of course not.

But car accidents aren't an everyday occurrence either. Most people will drive thousands of times without having a serious accident. That doesn't mean insurance is pointless.

The fact that something is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible, and people prepare for unlikely events all the time.

Hopefully I never need to use a firearm in self-defense. Just like I hope I never need to file a major insurance claim.

But I'd rather have the option and never need it than need it and not have it.

1 hour ago, ericthai said:

I look at it the same way I look at insurance.

I have car insurance, health insurance, homeowners insurance, and hopefully I never need any of them.

A firearm for self-defense is similar. I don't own one because I expect someone to kick my door in tonight. I own one just in case the worst happens.

Is it an everyday occurrence? Of course not.

But car accidents aren't an everyday occurrence either. Most people will drive thousands of times without having a serious accident. That doesn't mean insurance is pointless.

The fact that something is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible, and people prepare for unlikely events all the time.

Hopefully I never need to use a firearm in self-defense. Just like I hope I never need to file a major insurance claim.

But I'd rather have the option and never need it than need it and not have it.

Sure. But only people who own guns can imagine life going on after shooting someone.

13 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Sure. But only people who own guns can imagine life going on after shooting someone.

Yes, life would go on for the person with the gun if he/she was able to defend themselves with it.

That's the whole point, isn't it?

15 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Sure. But only people who own guns can imagine life going on after shooting someone.

Do you support the death penalty for anyone that shoots someone?

3 hours ago, NewGuy87 said:

Yes, life would go on for the person with the gun if he/she was able to defend themselves with it.

That's the whole point, isn't it?

3 hours ago, NewGuy87 said:

Yes, life would go on for the person with the gun if he/she was able to defend themselves with it.

That's the whole point, isn't it?

3 hours ago, NewGuy87 said:

Yes, life would go on for the person with the gun if he/she was able to defend themselves with it.

That's the whole point, isn't it?

You've missed my meaning. Any normal human who kills someone, whether with a gun or a car, suffers from it for the rest of their lives. There are millions of soldiers who can prove this point.

I'm a pacifist. If I did not resist, I would need no defence.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you support the death penalty for anyone that shoots someone?

Absolutely not! There should be no murder committed by the state (or anyone else)! In fact, the think this might be the right barometer for our humanity.

14 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

You've missed my meaning. Any normal human who kills someone, whether with a gun or a car, suffers from it for the rest of their lives. There are millions of soldiers who can prove this point.

Yes, I think we grasp the concept of PTSD.

And you can get that from being the victim of an attack too (as well as from accidents and other traumic experiences)

Still beats being dead.

14 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I'm a pacifist. If I did not resist, I would need no defence.

It doesn't always work that way