To be a "good guy with a gun," you have to shoot a bad guy with a gun. Why not just take away the guns?

Because the bad guy doesn’t care what the law says, he’s gonna do what he does. Ban or restrict the legal sale of guns, he’s gonna go get one from the black market. It’s only going to affect law abiding citizens.

In that case, let's legalize murder... According to your logic, murdering being allowed or not, a bad guy will do it anyway/ And let's legalize drugs... people will buy/sell it anyway... Let's legalize stealing... People will steal anyway. Let's allow sexual abuse... people will rape anyway... Let's remove all traffic lights... people will ignore red lights anyway... Let's abolish speed limits... people will drive too fast anyway... Let's not ban drinking before you drive... People will drink and drive anyway....

Also of all free nations in the world (no the USA isn't the only free nation), the USA is the only one where you can obtain a gun quite easily, and also the free nation with the highest amount of kills that do are not of "criminal nature" in the sense that it was done by a professional criminal organization wanting to get rid of people who became a threat to them. The USA has the highest shoot-out rates of all free nations.

Also of all free nations the USA is infamous for having the most aggressive cops. Quite logical, since a cop who is dealing with somebody who is unlikely to have a gun does not have to resort to violence that easily. A U.S. cop may have to cock their guns at me for just writing me a speeding ticket, as they can never tell if I will shoot out of anger for that ticket. There are countries were traffic cops are unarmed, you know...

Also the 2nd amendment was NOT meant to protect the people against the government. The setup (and if you read the amendment well you can even see that) was done to make sure people can fight when the country is attacked, so there is a militia who can fight along the army. After all, in the beginning days of the U.S. the Europeans, most notably the British did not accept the U.S. as a "free nation" in which free only meant "free from the UK". Face it, the UK is no longer your enemy that war is over, the amendment is therefore outdated. It served its purpose. It was introduced for the right reasons back in the time, but you gotta accept the world has changed since then. Stop living in colonial times, and accept the present!

"In that case, let's legalize murder... According to your logic, murdering being allowed or not, a bad guy will do it anyway/ And let's legalize drugs... people will buy/sell it anyway... Let's legalize stealing... People will steal anyway. Let's allow sexual abuse... people will **pe anyway... Let's remove all traffic lights... people will ignore red lights anyway... Let's abolish speed limits... people will drive too fast anyway... Let's not ban drinking before you drive... People will drink and drive anyway...."

That's retarded and you should feel retarded for making that argument. The point is it doesn't matter how many laws you and how much enforcement you have, bad people are going to do bad things so don't punish good people because bad people do bad things.

"Also of all free nations in the world (no the USA isn't the only free nation), the USA is the only one where you can obtain a gun quite easily, and also the free nation with the highest amount of kills that do are not of "criminal nature" in the sense that it was done by a professional criminal organization wanting to get rid of people who became a threat to them. The USA has the highest shoot-out rates of all free nations"

No other nation has a second amendment equivalent, hence why guns are as easy to come by as they are. It inevitably means that yes, some bad people will get guns through legal means and use those guns to commit crimes. However, good people should not be punished because bad people do bad things.

"Also of all free nations the USA is infamous for having the most aggressive cops. Quite logical, since a cop who is dealing with somebody who is unlikely to have a gun does not have to resort to violence that easily. A U.S. cop may have to cock their guns at me for just writing me a speeding ticket, as they can never tell if I will shoot out of anger for that ticket. There are countries were traffic cops are unarmed, you know..."

I've been pulled over by US cops on a few occasions. No cop has ever cocked their gun at me. No cop will get their gun ready at a traffic stop unless you give them reason to. Police officers have enough discipline to know when a situation calls for a gun and if you're professional and polite, you have nothing to worry about.

I've been arrested outside the US and they didn't even "roll over me", and yeah, I have met guys who did have to look into a gun in the US for something as trivial as a speeding ticket.

And just because bad people do bad things doesn't mean you shouldn't outlaw it and that is your statement about guns. Also note, although everything can be used to kill, a kitchen knife's primary function is to cut food and not to stab people, although it can be used for the latter. A gun's sole purpose is killing, and all else you can do with it, is "bonus". You cannot stop criminal organizations from liquidating each other, that much is true, but that doesn't mean that you can stop shoot-outs by banning guns. And getting by guns in countries were they are outlawed is not as easy as you think it is. You are always dependent on criminal lines, and you never know if they are monitored by the police or not. Sometimes even a party offering it is a cop in disguise (although you'll never get the gun itself, you can still place your order and that alone can be reason enough for arrest). The risks of getting caught are high. Only a true criminal knows how to evade those risks and even they are quite often caught due to something trivial as buying a gun.

Oh, and the only reason my first statement sounds retarded to you is because your own level of retardation. Somebody with an open mind doesn't use that word so easy. The way the word has been used the past years has made it into a kind of fashion word by retarded people trying to distract it to others. If you want to be taken seriously about anything, first thing you should learn is not to use that word. You only got your own statement backfired... Accept your loss like a man, and don't act like a spoiled brat by using foul words... People using those kinds of words count for me as "defeated and they know it, but are too much filled with pride to admit it"... So actually, I think you should look at yourself in the mirror a few more times before you "accuse" others of retardation. The fact that you use that word actually shows why you defend guns with so much passion actually...

" Also note, although everything can be used to kill, a kitchen knife's primary function is to cut food and not to stab people, although it can be used for the latter. A gun's sole purpose is killing, and all else you can do with it, is "bonus""

Okay, let's use your logic. Why stop at banning guns? Let's get rid of those pesky swords, spears, bows and arrows, switchblades, and slings while we're at it! People will still find ways to kill each other either through other legal weapons or whatever the black market supplies.

"And getting by guns in countries were they are outlawed is not as easy as you think it is. You are always dependent on criminal lines, and you never know if they are monitored by the police or not. Sometimes even a party offering it is a cop in disguise (although you'll never get the gun itself, you can still place your order and that alone can be reason enough for arrest). The risks of getting caught are high. Only a true criminal knows how to evade those risks and even they are quite often caught due to something trivial as buying a gun"

Yeah, getting things through the black market has risks. However, if there's a demand for that product, someone will always be willing to supply it. Take drugs for example. Drugs are illegal in the US except weed in some states, but they're not exactly hard to come by thanks to the black market. No matter how many bans you enforce, capitalism will always find a way.

"Oh, and the only reason my first statement sounds retarded to you is because your own level of retardation"

I called your first statement retarded because it was a retarded argument. Literally no one is calling for murder and rape to be legalized. Comparing the fact that the black market exists to "In that case, let's legalize murder..." is idiotic and yes, you should feel bad for making that argument.

"If you want to be taken seriously about anything, first thing you should learn is not to use that word. You only got your own statement backfired... Accept your loss like a man, and don't act like a spoiled brat by using foul words... blah blah blah"

I couldn't care less what you think of me. If you can't accept you made a bad argument, then don't be shocked when people call you out on it. No one's buying your macho man crap, accept it and move on.

"Let's get rid of those pesky swords, spears, bows and arrows, switchblades, and slings while we're at it!"

Did you know that all of them are already either banned or bound to very extremely strict regulations in most countries? So yeah, we are banning them already while we are still at it....

"If you can't accept you made a bad argument, then don't be shocked when people call you out on it."

The argument was not bad... It was just a cold hard fact that you don't want to admit and therefore seek the route of using words as "bad argument" and "retarded"... That's where you already lost the discussion before you made a point.

"No one's buying your macho man crap"

That's because what I said is not macho.You are the one unwilling to accept that it isn't. You are actually trying to act as the macho thinking that arms and violence is the solution to everything, and the truth and nothing but the whole truth is, that they are not. The fact that you consider that as blah blah blah tells me all about your maturity. Simple minded, and whenever proven wrong shouting like a little kid, just what you "conservatives" (I hate that word) accuse "liberals" of (which is far from what I am).

Also what you called "retarded" is now very well explained by you in a way that confirmed what I already suspected. It makes no sense talking to you, as you either are too stupid to understand the point I made or you are deliberately playing dumb knowing the truths of my statement and what I was trying to say, but you are trying to distract the discussion away from it, so you have a "valid" excuse to hold firm to your beliefs...

It is actually "macho" to believe in violence and all you need to be able to enforce it. Like you do in wanting to legalize guns. So you are also using words on me you don't even know the context of... If you were using words like "pacifist", or "sissie" or "coward" you'd still be wrong, but at least you would have made more sense....

Being called a macho for actually defying the macho ideology behind the reasoning for allowing guns this whole time.... Ain't that ironic... The first time somebody calls me that actually. I've been called many bad things, but "macho" oh, really, I never imagined somebody would even THINK about that (and I now need to replace my pants, thanks a lot).

"Also the 2nd amendment was NOT meant to protect the people against the government."

"What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Thomas Jefferson.

"The setup (and if you read the amendment well you can even see that) was done to make sure people can fight when the country is attacked, so there is a militia who can fight along the army."

Sure, the second amendment can allow for a militia to fight alongside the army. However if that was the only purpose of the second amendment, the founding fathers would have just implemented a draft like every other country including the US later on. It exists to protect the rights of its citizens from any threat, external or internal.

"Face it, the UK is no longer your enemy that war is over, the amendment is therefore outdated. It served its purpose. It was introduced for the right reasons back in the time, but you gotta accept the world has changed since then. Stop living in colonial times, and accept the present!"

Basically "it's muh current year, get with the times boomer!" If that's the best argument you can come up with to ban guns, you're just proving why we need guns in the first place: to stop some elitist twat from trampling on the rights of the masses.

A sole purpose of a militia is to defend the country against enemies. Also the the time of the wild west, as we call it, guns also served to arm yourself against predators, and maybe even Native Americans, but then again, the latter actually shows what the US is in the first place to this very day. Land occupied actually belonging to others.

When it comes to "rights", the core right in the human rights treaty is the right to live. A gun's sole purpose is to take that right away from somebody. That is a weapon's sole purpose after all. That being said, carrying a gun alone does allow people to easily infringe the right to live, and another point is that your freedom ends where it threatens other people's freedoms. Your statement makes clear that you actually have no sense of the fact that nothing can exist without limitation, and that also counts for freedom. Since the freedom to carry a gun is a threat to the freedom of others, most countries banned guns, and not only guns... Swords for example are banned in most countries for the same reason (with the sole exception for blunt swords, not forged strong enough to be used in battle (they'd break as soon as you attack with them) solely used for decoration purposes. For that reason my former girl-friend could have a replica of Aragorn's sword Anduril on her wall).

Also a gun does not protect you. The statement that a weapon is only as good or bad as the person wielding it, does not only apply to the wielder's sense for ethics... But also the wielder's skill. Killing yourself by accident because you were clumsy is not uncommon. Also if you as a civilian face a professional criminal, both armed with guns, don't think you stand a chance... And if you think it protects you from your government, well if soldiers storm your place all professionally trained to act on battlefields were they face enemies much more dangerous than you can ever be, how much help do you think your guns will protect you against anything. They will rather be your undoing, as they can force the soldiers to kill you were they can otherwise force you to surrender without using violence at all. Carrying a gun is one thing, but knowing how to use one is another. And don't think that shooting dummies on a shooting track is much preparations. So if it's the authorities gaining too much power you fear... A gun won't do that much good. And don't think that acting as a group will bring you advantage.... One leak in your organization and ....

"A sole purpose of a militia is to defend the country against enemies"

Yes. A tyrannical federal government would fall in that category as well.

"Also the the time of the wild west, as we call it, guns also served to arm yourself against predators, and maybe even Native Americans, but then again, the latter actually shows what the US is in the first place to this very day. Land occupied actually belonging to others"

Virtue signalling is not an argument. If you feel so badly about how Indians were treated, go and help them out instead of virtue signalling online.

"When it comes to "rights", the core right in the human rights treaty is the right to live. A gun's sole purpose is to take that right away from somebody. That is a weapon's sole purpose after all. That being said, carrying a gun alone does allow people to easily infringe the right to live, and another point is that your freedom ends where it threatens other people's freedoms. Your statement makes clear that you actually have no sense of the fact that nothing can exist without limitation, and that also counts for freedom. Since the freedom to carry a gun is a threat to the freedom of others, most countries banned guns, and not only guns..."

Bad guys don't care what the laws say, they will do what they want. Hence why you should have a right to defend yourself. A responsible gun owner knows to shoot in a non lethal area like an arm or leg, so they're not infringing on the criminal's right to live.

"Also a gun does not protect you"

Wrong.

"The statement that a weapon is only as good or bad as the person wielding it, does not only apply to the wielder's sense for ethics... But also the wielder's skill. Killing yourself by accident because you were clumsy is not uncommon. Also if you as a civilian face a professional criminal, both armed with guns, don't think you stand a chance..."

You stand a better chance with a gun than without one.

"And if you think it protects you from your government, well if soldiers storm your place all professionally trained to act on battlefields were they face enemies much more dangerous than you can ever be, how much help do you think your guns will protect you against anything. They will rather be your undoing, as they can force the soldiers to kill you were they can otherwise force you to surrender without using violence at all"

You clearly don't understand freedom then. Freedom fighters all over the world know the risks and are willing to die for the cause.

"Yes. A tyrannical federal government would fall in that category as well."

Sure! But I've already told you how much chance you stand against that if you are armed. You vs. professionals.... Sorry, I'm a realist, my money is on the tyrannical government... If you actually had one.. Oh wait, the Trump administration does a good job... EEEKS!

"If you feel so badly about how Indians were treated, go and help them out instead of virtue signalling online."

Nice one, but not good enough. What can I do? Buy a gun and help them? Now tell me, since guns are your philosophy I should be victorious, right? I don't think so...
And was I stating I feel bad about their fate? Their troubles are not of my doing, so why would I have to feel bad about it? I was only pointing something out.

"Wrong."

The only wrong thing about that word is the word itself. Why? Because you fail to explain why it will protect you.

"You stand a better chance with a gun than without one."

You won't stand a chance either way... As a matter of fact, when your opponents are trained professionals or criminals without a concience... Any strategist could tell you that trying to go down fighting might sound heroic, but is nothing more but suicide... Dropping your gun (if you have one) and surrender will make your chance of survival much bigger... And if you're killed away, the same fate would have awaited you when you had a gun.

"You clearly don't understand freedom then. Freedom fighters all over the world know the risks and are willing to die for the cause."

I think I understand it better than you do. When you understand freedom, you also accept its limitations. Nothing can exist without a limit. Freedom in its purest form means doing whatever you want whenever you want and why you want. Means that if I wanna kill somebody for fun, freedom in its purest form allows me to. THAT is freedom in its purest form, and now you also understand why even freedom has its limits. Why carrying a gun is a needed limit if you really want to be "free" is a bit more obscure to understand, but that does not mean that this limit isn't needed to preserve freedom of others. In the end everything has a limit. Only when you understand the limits of something, you can understand that something.
And that my friend goes for ANYTHING in this universe which includes but is not limited to freedom. And the freedom you can create by accepting its limits is the freedom my ancestors died for... That is called WISDOM!

To speak in NRA terms, if you kill a man who would otherwise kills thousands of people, it means you may have killed one but thousands of lives are saved, so 1 vs thousands.... Well, the math fits, but math does not always show reality.

In the end a gun is only as good and bad as the person who wields it, and that phrase does not only apply in ethic sense, but also, in the quality of the shooter. Civilian, only used a gun before on a dummy, no experience in life threatening situations, scared to death, everything to lose VERSUS fully trained mass murderer, you have no idea about his experience, has nothing to lose, ready to die (quite often even planning to commit suicide after the shooting anyway).... Sorry, as a realist my money is on the latter.

I once heard somebody ask a professional pirate hunter, if it isn't scary going into a ship hijacked by pirates all armed with fully loaded kalashnikovs. The hunter replied: "Only a fool wouldn't feel any form of fear, but you know that thanks to your training you are better than they are, regardless of the weapons they have." Sounds a bit arrogant, but when you realize I just quoted a professional in this field, you can see why these "good guys with a gun" can win against the "bad guys with a gun"... It's not their gun... It's their professional training.

And it also wouldn't be the first time that an unarmed man manages to "overpower" a man who was all packed up with guns, knives and explosives... Yes, sometimes even with violence... No matter how well armed you are, if somebody manages to sneak upon you from behind and manages to punch you knock-out on the moment you least expected it, then what will all your guns do?

And cocking a gun at somebody is easy, but a golden rule in gunfights is that once you cock your gun at somebody you give them the right to shoot you. And how many people have it in 'em to pull the trigger? One moment of hesitation and a real killer will pull theirs first... And then your gun is rendered useless in less than a second...

The math still fits, but math alone is not what it takes to fully discuss the need of guns or the need to outlaw them, is it?