But That's None Of My Business

This is funny.

Me neither, but this is actually hilarious.

>back into its political days

I know this is just a joke and all, but obviously guns are designed to injure or kill people. Spoons don't enable obesity in an way. You can kill people with out a gun, but a gun is a a lot more straight forward.

Ok say guns are outlawed but a criminal breaks in your house with a gun. To protect your family, would you rather have a gun or a knife? You never bring a knife to a gun fight and you can't eat peas with a butter knife.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V1SY

I wish we could get a President that actually thought this.

And obviously spoons are meant to feed people guns don't kill humans kill that what u just said basically :/ you can get fat without a spoon but a spoon makes it easier bravo my retarded man

Guns can't kill people people can kill people with guns spoons can't make people fat people can use spoons to be fat see my point? Even in places with guns banned instead of murders with guns they use knives knives kill so let's ban them so do fists and cars and base ball bats and crow bars :/

>spoons don't enable obesity

spoons enable eating

eating makes you fat

fat kills you

WE NEED TO BAN SPOONS

Gun control works in Canada and Australia... (Impeding wall of hate)

the UK also

I disagree with this bullshit but upvoted because it's hilarious!

You are all... morons... Stricter background checks, mandatory screenings and training, etc, are all enacted towards people... not guns. So unless you are criminally insane or have other legal or mental issues preventing you from acquiring a gun, such regulations would have no effect on you. It all comes down the ridiculously easy access to guns for those unfit to have one. The logical fallacies and unconditional love for guns isn't helping anyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXICCryXhUU

33,000 "so far this year" in the US -- now that's a bullshit argument. Sources?

There really aren't any because the BS GOP congress made it so gun deaths couldn't be studied. If there aren't any current statistics it must not be true.

gun deaths us 2014 - Google Search regardless of the exact figure the US leads the first world gun death stats and that is not justified by "what if a psycho breaks into my house" bullshit hypothetical argument

Houses in america is broken into every 13 seconds. 1 out of 3 end in assault. My house has never been broken into because everyone knows i have guns. No bullshit argument here.

"Everyone" knows you have guns? You worried about your friends breaking in?

even the street thugs know i have guns

Maybe you need to associate with better people.

It's not the people I associate with, it's where i live.

Get a big f**king dog, buy better doors and windows, get an alarm system. Still doesn't justify the ridiculous gun death count Compared to Europe and Australia who tightened their gun laws

I got 4 f**king dogs (which act as an alarm system) and 10 big ass guns. If the dogs don't get'em, I will.

Cracks me up how y'all find it normal

Why do people learn how to fight? So, they don't have too. Same goes for guns.

Everyone I know who learn martial arts say that but seem to be in fights all the time. Same goes with guns. You don't "have to" use them but the stats suggest differently. Why don't you admit you just have guns cos you like having guns?

Having tougher restrictions won't keep criminals from getting guns. The states that have less restrictions have less loss of life by guns. The states with tougher restrictions have higher crime rate including gun related deaths.

All guns start out legal. It's not like Colt is selling them out the back door to criminals. Tough, consistent laws would deter people from "losing" guns so easily and habitually.

No doubt I like my guns. I like them so much, I only use them for fun. Never had to shoot anyone......yet.

Fair enough I think responsible people should have the right to own them but it just seems like to many maniacs in the US have them and that's why there are a ridiculous amount of gun deaths. I'm not saying ban them just tighten the regulations a bit

We like having guns because of someone with a knife or gun breaks into your house let's see if you have a dog shot and killed now what? Oh no I don't have guns BAM your dead you have guns BAM yay I win or u can use it to just scare him off

So if guns are made illegal, and all law abiding citizens turn in their guns, who is going to get the guns from those who are not law abiding citizens? You do also realize that it is those who don't obey the law that cause the majority of all gun related deaths throughout the world. So removing guns from those who obey the laws and don't kill people will not stop those from who break the law and kill people with guns. Making guns illegal will not solve the problem, just make it worse.

It does solve the problem! I'm not speaking hypothetically here. Making guns illegal has already happened in the UK and Australia and it was a complete success. In the case of armed criminals with guns in the UK a swat style police unit are there faster than you can blink. A society without guns is a safer one. It's obvious

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities
How about you go and read this, more specifically number 4. States that allow citizens to carry have a 24% lower violent crime rate, 19% lower murder rate, and a 39% lower robbery rate than states that don't allow conceal and carry.

" In the case of armed criminals with guns in the UK a swat style police unit are there faster than you can blink." So take away all the control of our lives and give it to the government? Do you really think we want to live in a dictatorship?

That looks pretty convincing I'd say, but I guess we always look for stats that back up our postition. Instead of only thinking inside your own country why not look at this which compares your country to mine?
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime Just for thought.
Also just because we don't have guns doesn't mean we live in a dictatorship. Over here there is no 3 strikes and you're out policy, there's no death penalty. Plus do you really think that having a few assault rifles protects you from your own government that has highly tried soldiers and drones. If they wanted to take your freedom there's nothing you could do about it guns or no guns

Can't compare apples and oranges here. 2 different types of government means that the people are different as well and the police response is different.

And if you think that there is nothing we can do if the government takes away our rights? England thought the same thing over 200 years ago and look what happened. Don't underestimate the will of the people who want to be free.

England did that when people fought with muskets. Once again you can't compete with the most advanced military force in the world with a few assault rifles and pistols. I've met loads of Americans as well as people from all over the world, deep down we're all the same. You're also certainly not free considering the federal reserve basically owns you

You are still under estimating the will of people who want to be free.

Regardless of what you think about freedom and the federal reserve, that is in no way comparable to saying we don't have the freedom to defend ourselves against anyone who threatens us, criminal or government.

I hear what you're saying. I do not for a second doubt your will and resolve. I just doubt your technological capacity to beat your government. If it comes to that then I wish you all the best (y)

How about you think about this as well. Just because people are in the military, that doesn't mean they are going to do what the government tells them to do. So if the government tries to take away the freedoms that those men and women are fighting for, which side do you think the people in the military are going to take? What good is that "technology" going to be for the government if they have no one to run it?

its got nothing to do with a dictatorship

What type of government doesn't allow the citizens to have guns?

some dictatorships do allow firearms to be held by the public to some extent

"A society without guns is a safer one. It's obvious."

That may be obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to other people. And as others have pointed out here, that statement doesn't seem to correlate to reality very well.

The statement correlate to reality as it is in the UK, Australia, Canada and the rest of Europe. Pro gun arguments are based on hypothetical situations. My argument is based on changes that actually took place in countries that tightened their gun laws.

Correlates*

Hopefully you read some of BobParker's comments, below.

Perhaps the link between gun laws and crime reduction is not as straightforward as you describe.

I did not propose a link between gun laws and crime. I proposed a link between gun laws and deaths caused by guns. Crime is everywhere.

Thanks for the correction. I should have written, "Perhaps the link between gun laws and the reduction of deaths caused by guns is not as straightforward as you describe."

I don't love guns and I wish we didn't need them. But I think we do.

Anyway, I don't think we need another "gun control" argument.

LOL! That's not a source. Try refuting the facts at gunfacts.info ... good luck with that.

Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suicides has not risen. There is no correlation between the availability of firearms and the rates of homicide and suicide in America. Source: Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter. (With supporting data from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics)

So websites I search for are not a source but the website you post happens to be conveniently credible? Hmmm... This is something that actually happened:guns used to be available is the UK and Australia. After the Dunblane incident in Scotland gun laws were tightened. There was a similar incident in Australia causing them to change theirs too. In both cases gun deaths dropped. It's just common sense.

No gun deaths and violent crime didn't drop. That's a myth. Easily refuted. Violent crime INCREASED because it's easier to commit when you're pretty sure no one is armed. The site I referred to uses actual FBI statistics and research rather than the emotional "all guns are bad" approach of the anti-gun crowd. Sources matter. I've been a victim and my gun kept me alive. Once the idiot saw it, he backed off and ran. Guns prevent crimes, not the other way around. Again, research bears this out if you're willing to examine it with an eye toward truth rather than an eye toward partisanship.

Dude I'm not just making this up. I live in a country where they banned guns and gun deaths dropped it's no myth. They also banned carrying knifes and knife crime dropped too. I also believe sources matter that's why I'd be skeptical about trusting something written by the FBI. I also don't believe guns are bad, I don't believe guns kill people, I believe idiots with guns kill people whether it's intentional or not. I also respect that having that experience would make you have that opinion. My original point simply was that out of of all the first world countries. America is way ahead in figures where people died from guns. In the countries where there aren't so many gun deaths(especially accidental ones) all these countries have laws that make guns a lot harder to own. In the US you can buy a 12 gauge shotgun instore from walmart. Does that seem normal to you? It's a supermarket when you get groceries but you can also buy a weapon that can blow someone's head off. It may seem normal to you but to the rest of the world it's f**king insane

Yes, it's a myth. Brazil has mandatory licensing, registration, and maximum personal ownership quotas. It now bans any new sales to private citizens. Their homicide rate is almost three (3) times higher than the U.S. In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000). One study of Canadian firearm law and homicide rates spanning 34 years “failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates” for three major gun control bills. Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries. Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen. Ironically, firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population). 67% of British residents surveyed believed that “As a result of gun and knife crime [rising], the area I live in is not as safe as it was five years ago.” Respond if you'd like the sources -- they range from universities to governments.

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."

Guns are used 2.5 million times per year in the US to prevent crimes, , the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

60% of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." And 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime." 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Myth: "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected.

65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.

>bullsh*t argument
>implying criminals care about laws