More guns leads to less shootings

If only they had common sense. They LOVE false equivalence.

remember that Indiana shooting?

Not really. There seem to be several shootings a day in 'the land of the free'. Are you, by any chance, pro gun and referring to one of those one in a million cases that a good guy with a gun actually killed the bad guy with a gun? If so, you may have learned in school that a rare incident does not mean something is common, right? Furthermore: try to imagine to live in a civilized country. You know, one in which both men would not have had a gun because of heavy restrictions on gun ownership.

if you were going to shoot a college campus, and you had two to choose from. all of their statistics were identical. except on one, guns were illegal. and on the other, guns were legal and carried. which would you choose to attack? (assuming that you have some sort of mental illness that would cause you to do this.)

How about "abolishing the prison state leads to more unacceptable crimes (including shooting)?" Ever since Dems have gotten in power, they've let criminals out of jail left and right, essentially telling criminal's that it's okay to commit crimes. Then they want to ban guns like THAT'S the problem... It's like trying to stop a growing fire by spraying a fire hose at some random spot instead of the base. You'll never solve the problem if you're just solving the surface. And banning guns could cause a lot of other potential problems that would make school shootings seem tame.

What could possible make school shootings seem tame? History doesn't support your claim.

That stat doesn't say where it was polled... I'm talking about history from other countries. You ban guns, only the government has them, which means all schools that don't teach "hail the supreme leader" can get defenslessly shot down. And it's not limited to just schools, any person essentially who doesn't support the country's leadership can get mercilessly murdered in droves. This is worse than school shootings bc there's really nothing that can be done about that except for a revolution (since the ones responsible for punishing crime would be involved in the crime), but everyone is too scared to do that in these kinds of utopias. With a school shooting you can decrease the rate by having harsh punishment for it.

Also, that was all you took from that?

Just curious: where did you get that nonsense from? And if you would actually think for yourself instead of simply repeat the words of some populist, would you still think it's true? You have no figures to back up your claim. Stating 'I think I read it somewhere' is your best 'evidence'. I'm sorry but this was a terrible effort to support the gun lobby.

Where do you think I got it? I happen to know that with the banning of guns, historically a dictatorship follows. Pol Pot banned guns, and look what he did. His takeover was ugly; all forms of religion, popular culture, and self-expression were banned. People had things done to them that I won't mention here. Both Hitler and Stalin tried to ban guns as much as possible, and even the left wing fact checks don't deny it. Most ppl's argument is "it won't make much of a difference anyway", but all it does is make a revolution impossible if the government gets out of hand. Nobody can defend themselves. You're dead before you even get anywhere near the fight. Thomas Jefferson once said, "When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty." Oh, and guess what country thinks we should have strict gun laws? Cambodia, where Pol Pot took over.

You do realize that even if the government that you dangerously put ALL your faith in actually turns out to be the angels you think they are (which they ain't), giving the government that much power is STILL a mistake? The reason America banned kings was because the fate of the country depended on the heart of its leader. You might have a benevolent king for 40 years, and then a terrorizing king for 40 years. If we give the government that much power over the people, someone will abuse it one day and make one generation's lives miserable. The government is run by people with agendas, and agendas change. If only you could see that they've already changed.

By far most countries have put restrictions on owning guns. Are they all dictatorships? You mentioned exactly one single case of a dictatorship were gun ownership is restricted. That's by far not 'proof' than restricting gun ownership leads to a country becoming a dictatorship. You used false logic. An example of your kind of 'logic': 'In the USA lawn darts are banned. Also in the USA a game show host became president. Ergo: banning lawn darts leads to people choose a game show host to lead their country.' But nice try and I guess some people would fall for your kind of reasoning. Furthermore: in the USA gun ownership is not heavily restricted. And a Democrat is president. That means - following your reasoning - that not banning guns leads to Democrats leading the USA. But I guess you're okay with that. And that's fine.

I mentioned two, and you missed the point. The point isn’t that all gun bans lead to dictatorships, it’s that they make them MUCH easier. And that analogy is absolutely asinine because a lawn dart ban has nothing to do with Trump getting elected, whereas the topics of government control and gun bans are completely relevant to one another. I can’t believe I have to explain that, and part of me was tempted not to. If anyone falls for that reasoning, they are in desperate need of prayer. And why do you think Democrats are trying to control all the branches this year? If Democrats get power this year (which they will), the Supreme Court will just do everything the media and the radical left want.
And you did it again? Gosh you have no idea how to argue. So by your level of logic, speaking German leads to Hitler taking over your country, so since I know people who can speak German, we will have a Hitler overtake America. We could have a field day with this. We could say that racism eventually leads to minorities (Obama) getting elected, we could say that speaking Chinese means you’re the next Mao Zedong (or at least a communist), we could say that being a football player means you accidentally kill yourself by driving 100 MPH like Derrick Thomas did. Or to go even further, we could say that volcanos on planets lead to the development of human brains, since both happened on Earth. Or that the sky is blue and Democrats exist, therefore the sky being blue causes Democrats to exist. This type of argument is downright laughably hubris.

Sorry to tell you this but you are making a classic reasoning mistake: Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot did not become dictators BECAUSE in the years before gun laws had become more strict. There's no direct correlation. Making it easier for people to kill children with (semi-automatic) rifles never in history lead to a country becoming a nice and peacuful democracy. Reversing your 'logic' it should. But perhaps you could try to think for yourself instead of repeating the narratives of the gun lobby? Let's talk again when the Democrats get full power, okay? Let's see if the USA is worse off then, then when led by Trump and the gun lobby. Homework for now: look at Pakistan. Where large part of the populace are heavily armed but still controlled by a dictatorship.

First, I never said that. That definitely played a huge factor, but I never said it was BECAUSE of strict gun laws. But, your "logic" can be reversed on the government: making it easier for the government with all the rifles to kill children will never lead to a country becoming a nice and peaceful democracy. Matter of fact, gun bans are a quick way to abolish democracy. And where the US is headed these days, and what the left is up to these days, I don't trust them when they say gun bans will protect our safety. I mean, these are the same ppl that claimed defunding police would protect blacks and then blamed it on conservatives when crime rates inevitably skyrocketed.
I do think for myself. I'm just aware of the arguments and I don't think your stance makes the most sense because you put a lot of trust in known liars called politicians. And you must be on crack if you really think we're headed on any improving trajectory from when Trump was in office. Even some Dems I know (yes, I actually know people that I don't agree with) know this.
And I never said all dictatorships are run with gun bans. Gun bans just makes them easier.

Your own words: 'with the banning of guns, historically a dictatorship follows'. And now you're backtracking. I see it as a sign you are slowly starting to actually think for yourself instead of repeating the words that are populair in your bubble and I congratulate you on that.

I wouldn't say things like "you're slowly starting to think for yourself" after that line of illogical mess you just used, especially since Dems are known for not knowing Republicans far more often than Republicans don't know Dems (partly bc democrat agendas are being spouted all over tv and all forms of entertainment). I also don't have a "Republican bubble." You don't know a thing about my life, so stop trying to guess at it.

Interesting. You are not replying to the 'now you are backtracking' part but are simply trying to put words in my mouth. That's called 'gaslighting' these days but is basically an old debating trick in an effort not having to reply to the actual question. Nice try! Care to have one more go at actually replying to my statement that it's nonsense to think banning guns leads to a dictatorship? Perhaps you want to backtrack your statement 'historically banning guns leads to a dictatorship' even further? Good luck!

@bearingbunnies. Please do some research before you make a statement. Unless you want to look stupid. They do have gun restrictions in Switzerland and recently made them more strict in accordance with EU law. And why did you disable the possibility to reply to your statements? Afraid to be called out? ☺️

@Bearingbunnies: too bad you made it impossible to reply. Just want to let you know that historians disagree with you on your statement: "According to Schäfer, a historian from the Martin Luther University in Germany, one of the main reasons why Switzerland was not invaded was because of the ceasefire between France and Germany, which France was forced to accept following the German offensive in May and June 1940." But what do historians know about history, right? ;-)

read the gods of the copybook headings. remember WWII? Switzerland was never invaded. and that's because they armed and trained every citizen, including the school children.

did you know that they have almost no mass shootings and they have basically no gun control?