It's the big debate, who should/shouldn't have guns in their hands? I think it is a very interesting thing to talk about, who should have them. In my opinion (THIS IS AN OPINION NOT A WAR!) Everyone EVERYONE 18+ should have a gun period. Why? here are some good reasons 
 
(1 Would you rob a house if you knew every adult inside had a gun? How about if you decided to do a school shooting? Remember every Teacher, Lunch Maid, and Guard has one. If you walked in and shot the first kid, 3 teachers would point and fire at you. (hey, you saved approx. 20 lives!)
 
(2  Switzerland has the least amount of crime because of the suggestion mentioned above.   
 
(3 Taking everyone's guns leave us defense-less and at the mercy of a perverted-minded blood-thirsty thug (criminals can still get guns on the black market you know, a lot more easily then drugs!) 
 
(4 Criminals hate being confronted, they are cowards who prefer to run (or shoot themselves) then encounter someone else with a gun. In reality they are spoiled brats who couldn't get a grip in life. 
 
(5 What  are the odds of a criminal successfully robbing a bank, when the teller and the guard has a gun?! (plus every adult in the building) 
 
 You might be thinking  

Oh! How could you do that! If everyone had a gun people would shoot each-other!
 
 Well, would you.  
 
 Of course not!  
 
 There you go,case closed. 
 
 

I agree! Criminals can get guns, whether their illegal or not! I'd rather be packing heat and able to protect others than not.

1)Rob
Yes, if you were desperate enough you would, in fact, knowing you had a gun, whats to stop the robber deciding just to do you in while you sleep to remove that problem?
School shooting.
Given how most people who go on massacres are absolutely nuts, and often kill themselves, I doubt the threat of death will be a deterrent. They know the police have guns and will arrive soon, that dosent stop them

Also, you seriously think its a good idea to have guns, in a classroom? Really?Arm everyone? And when a kid inevitably finds a gun? Also, element of surprise, automatic weapon, shoot the adults first, then the kids, its not stopped people dying.

2)Prove thats because of guns? there are as many figures against guns as for.

3)You have no faith in your police force huh? For years the usa has treated guns as toys, actually giving them away with commercial purchases of normal items, and now, the streets are awash with them, and the blood of innocent people. Guns are practically illegal in the uk. You know how many times iv been threatened with one?never.seen one?never.known people to have seen or been threatened?never.
Unless a guy walks up to you saying ima shoot you, ima shoot you, he has the element of surprise. Once hes got you, it dosent matter if you have a gun on you. And assuming you both have it out, what are you going to do, shoot the bullet out of the air? that would be defence but impossible. Know, you try and shoot him, yeh ok, youre trying to avoid being shot, but giving out guns just gives state approval to kill people if you think they are a threat.

4)And that is in no way a massive generalization. Every single criminal is a coward who has no stomach for a fight. Iv got no food, no money, and this guy might put up a fight, il just go hungry. No
Im not stating that being a criminal is ok, im not stating that all are on hard times, but i am stating if you actually tried to solve the problems that cause these things instead of blowing each other to high heaven youre nation might actually be in a better condition.
Spoiled brats. if they are spoiled its funny they find it necessary to obtain more money, hardly a life of luxury.

5)You case the joint. Figure out who works there, who is likely to be armed. Youre not going to be doing the job alone unless youre an idiot. A few take position near those who work there, that are armed, and a few get ready to grab a hostage. Those who are trained properly with there weapon are gone, and anyone in the crowd who is a threat, knows if they fire a gun, the 8 year old gets it. Then you disarm the crowd and staff.

Or, you can take the psycho approach, walk in with a detonator, open the top, im wired to blow, anyone moves, you all die, then get the rest of your group to move through the crowd searching them.
Or countless other methods that the desperate mind of a criminal could concoct.


People shoot, not guns. So remove the guns and the people can still shoot?
No.
Hypothetically, why not give everyone grenades then, what if theres a big group of attackers, the fact that they can do massive damage is irrelevant huh?
I fancy building a nuclear weapon, just for fun, i wont use it. But thats ok, so long as people dont misuse it.
A gun is not a toy, a gun is not a tool, it is a weapon designed to kill. Giving them out just states as a nation, you arent going to try and end murder, just increase it.

But hey, theres no obvious ways to dilute the threat, is there? Like ensuring those with mental impairments cant buy guns? Or doing a criminal check on them? Disallowing assault rifles? Thats all impossible?
Really, what do you need an assault rifle for? How many people go hunting with an m4 carbine? Using it for defence? If youre spraying 40 rounds a second out at an assailant, whats to stop one of those bullets ripping through the neighbours house and killing little sally sleeping in her bed? Bullets dont just stop if they miss there target, they can carry on for miles.


Really, why cant you guys just meet in the middle ground.
Recognise that certain weapons have no place in peoples hands, and do checks before selling weapons. How often have you needed a gun, right at this second. A weeks check isnt a long time in a lifespan of 80+years.
And actually trying to combat the reasons why people take these actions.

Until something changes, i can almost guarantee that within a couple of months, another massacre will happen. Whether anyone actually cares enough to try and prevent it remains to be seen.

bombchu link : I couldn't agree more. It doesn't matter if they're legal or not, the criminals will find a way to get them. But knowing that the victims that they are going after have guns could change their minds. And if not, think how quickly it could be stopped. Instead of a massacre, maybe only one shot would be shot by the bad guy. Like one thing that happened, not sure how long ago, but in Oregon, there was a mall shooting, and one concealed weapon holder took out his gun, pointed it at the shooter, and he stopped, then killed himself. Think of who he would have killed if the man had not had a concealed weapon, they had to wait for the police. How many lives did that save? One thing we know is it would be quite a bit.

thenumberone :  
 
(1 If they know that the police have guns, why would he turn it on himself? And wouldn't he turn it on himself if he saw the Teacher with the gun? before he shoots everyone?  
 
(2 the element of surprise only works until he turns the corner, the odds of survival are next to none. 
 
 (3 it takes 35 minutes for the police to show up. with a machine gun, you could kill 100 people in that time. (at least) and the 100 people that have a gun could shoot him down in 5 seconds. 
 
 (4 spoiled as in having no restrictions, ( rules) or any form of self-control. 
 
 (5 That's why they choose the bank WITHOUT guns or a police station nearby. All banks have guns = less/no options for the criminals.
 
 Now I see what you mean by the kid who touches the gun and kills himself, but that's reality. 
 
 People still can shot without guns. Why? black market. Illegal means nothing to them. You just dis-arm the good patriotic men and women of america. 
 
 No one needs machine guns, period. I agree there  ( I know that the criminals can get them but they are too risky to use to despose of the thieves)
 
 All criminals fear death because they want to keep smoking pot and spend that money that they stole. 
  
 

1) If you knew everyone had a gun, chances are the person would wait till they're asleep and instead of using their guns against them, they'd probably slash the throats to cause less noise.
It sounds kinda like the school situation is a bit obvious of an answer.

2) That's probably not the only reason why.

3) Not really. There are multiple ways to fight against somebody with a gun, whether it be with melee weaponry or bare hands. I know multiple different ways I could even save myself with my bare hands with methods my mom actually taught me, all of which would definitely work.

4) Refer to answer 3.

5) Zero chances. Not because the one running the place has a gun, but because of the fact they have ways to track the money that gets stolen. They set aside money to give when they're being robbed, and they have the specific tracking codes on said money to report it being stolen and can be found a lot easier.

6) "Well, would you? Of course not!" Wrong. Most people actually do end up shooting each other when they feel desperate enough to fight back in such ways, and most times are successful.

Might I remind you that 9 out of 10 cases of gun attacks are all done by people that are 18+? Plus, there are much more gruesome attacks done with knifes or machetes, one of which being recent (The knife attack in China where everyone actually survived), and the other one being a bit of a while ago that I vaguely remember (Some guy butchered his whole family after they won quite a lot of money, which I may or may not be remembering correctly. It was, however, done with a machete), Nya~.

The best way to defend yourself is to kill yourself. Go ahead and load up on guns and ammo its not going to save you from s#it, wont save you from court, wont save you from prison, wont save you from cancer, wont save you from mental pain or any other 7 billion people on this planet unless you blow your own brains out.

Lets say I kill a bad guy and survive. Tomorrow is another day and in reality I didn't save myself from anything as I now have more problems to defend myself against. Life is all about survival but no one wins that is what is funny about it. Time is ticking and 100 years from now we will all be dead anyway.

What do mass shooters and those who jumped off the twin towers have in common? They both understood that in the end the only way to defend themselves is to kill themselves.

If society is so bad that you have to carry a gun around why not blow your brains out and stop playing games? If all the soldiers who died defending this country with guns did no good for our safety then what makes you think by you owning a gun will save you and future generations? It won't.

Singelli : Just throwing this out there, but I'm honestly surprised that somebody such as you would suggest the Death Penalty. It honestly shows just how severe things seem to be getting now. Though, unless it's a situation like the recent shooting at Sandy Hook, I think that the Death Penalty is a bit too... Extreme. Life in prison would be more reasonable. The garbage of the world deserve to rot, not get out easy, Nya~.

JigSaw : You do realize this isn't some post apocalyptic wasteland, right?

bombchu link :   Nobody should have guns!  I humans can't learn to use the properly AND safely then we shouldn't have them at all.

MegaRevolution1 :  Wouldn't that mean you think death penalty isn't extreme enough?  LOL  If rotting is worth than death?

Before addressing any of your five questions, I read an article about Australia's response to a shooting in 1996. They enacted stricter gun laws, and gun related homicides went down without other homicide rates increasing. There was also no increase in home invasions. Here's a link in case anyone's interested.

1) I wouldn't rob any house, personally, but I don't know that thinking someone may have a gun would deter home invaders. Usually people try to break into a house when no one is home or, as others have suggested, when they're asleep.

2) I don't think Switzerland's low crime rate has anything to do with their gun ownership. And their gun ownership is not for self-defense.

3) It would still be harder for them to get a gun than it is now.

4) That's simply not true. It wouldn't be as easy as pulling a gun out to stop someone from killing or stealing from you. In fact an FBI agent told my brother that if he wanted to carry a handgun then he should sand the end of it down so it doesn't hurt as bad when the guy takes it from him and shoves it up his ass.

5) I honestly don't think arming bank tellers would help anything. And most banks have security.

MegaRevolution1 : Yes it is, ask the dinosaurs lol.

BTW... as far as mass shootings go, seems to me that they happen not by thugs nor criminals, just normal citizens who had enough of society. Criminal background checks and mental exams to buy guns wont fix anything all you need is a depressed person or an angry person and you got dead people all about.

It is impossible to have an actual, meaningful debate on gun laws and reform if people insist on sticking to extreme arguments... and arming a classroom is one of those. That very idea sickens me and comes across as the most extreme notion I can think of. Those teachers did not need a gun to be brave, even if you do.

Here is a fun question for you: What if the teacher, during such a high stress situation, accidentally shot a child? Even if all they did was shoot the potential shooter, what psychological damage would that do to them? To the children who watch their teacher kill a person? Did you even bother to THINK about that? Somehow, I doubt it.

I have heard a very logical idea of having a gun safety and usage training class be mandatory in high school followed by two years of government service, after which you keep your gun. It is similar to other countries like Israel or Switzerland, so it seems logical. Except for those pesky little facts like funding... we can't even make driver's education a mandatory class anymore, so this would never work. Or about the vast cultural differences between our cultures (we are far more violent).

Now, I make this very clear, I am not saying take all guns away... because that is the other extreme position, and like I said before, extreme positions are bad. We need reform. 40% of all gun sales don't require a background check... that is appalling. Background checks, 100% of the time! No assault rifles, no extended magazines, no armor piercing rounds... civilians do not need these things, those are military only. That is a very common sense reform idea that even members of the NRA agree with (just not their leadership, because they fall into that extreme category).

The elephant in the room for gun control is mental illness. How do you keep a crazy person from getting a gun? You cannot deny a family member of their's the right to own a gun because their son/daughter/brother/niece/whatever is a paranoid schizophrenic... so what do you do? Oh, I don't know, maybe reinstate the mental healthcare facilities that they closed down decades ago? Actually give families an option for when their child has psychotic episodes but has not yet committed a crime? Again, common sense ideas. And if we are going to spend money to implement changes, I think reforming mental healthcare would go further in preventing shootings like this than passing a gun out to everyone.

I'm just posting to say that I am reading all that you are saying. And not just ignoring it. ( I don't have much time on my hands this week)

MegaRevolution1 : Huh, that's an interesting thought, life in prison being worse punishment than death.I always thought that we should get rid of those criminals as soon as possible to make room for others waiting on the judge. But that is a good point.

Elara : People, or children may get hit in the cross fire, it's better that the teacher has a chance to defend her classroom than to have no gun,
and no chance. I would not want a child to get shot, it's better that the teacher accidentally shoots someone, and then the murderer, rather than her having no gun, and everyone gets shot.I don't know about what else you said, seems like a long hassle to let
citizens get a gun. Parents need to educate their children on guns. That's how I learned gun safety.

thenumberone : Yeah, criminals will do desperate things, that's why you need to have a gun to kill him before he shoots you.
A gun may not guarantee life, but it at least gives you a chance. As Mega said (can I call her that? ) in most cases the defender has 
successfully defeated the attacker. It seems to me that the main argument for gun control is that more lives can be saved if the government
can keep the guns out of everyones hands. Well, drugs are illegal, but criminals still smugle them in. They can do the same with guns you know,
and then when there is a mass shooting in public, no law abiding citizens will have a gun to save everyone from the murderer.

bombchu link :

1)No, he wouldnt, we've established that most of them dont care about dying (when it comes to massacres) so knowing that there victims are amred wont do much in that scenario.

2)If hes got them in a classroom theyre enclosed, with an automatic weapon theyre dead in a matter of seconds. Plus He has as much chance of landing a hit on the next armed person as they do on him, more so in fact because they still dont realise what the shooter looks like, they dont want to shoot an inoccent, he however will shoot anyone and everyone.

3)And how many of every hundred people are likely to misuse the weapon, if everyone had a gun there would likely be hundreds, thousands more deaths a year, as opposed to 20 in 1 scenario.

5) You really underestimate criminal determination, they dont commit crimes because they're bored, many have no money and no job opportunity, starvation is as much death as a bullet.

I think your idea of criminals is too generic, hence why you think what you suggest would work. Being a criminal dosent mean you smoke pot, that you will blow the money, that you are a coward or that you are stupid. They can be these things but many of them arent, and some of them are none of these. Having the death penalty for things such as stealing bread in Britain never stopped people doing it.

MegaRevolution1 :
I would say point 3 would depend on the factors, such as distance from you, the experience of the individual with the gun, and luck.

As for 5 there are a whole host of ways to "clean" money. Like fencing multiple times or bouncing it around with several less than reputable banks. Granted most people wouldnt manage it but if It was a serious group with connections it could be done. Most of the time they dont make it out of the bank though, once the police arrive its next to impossible to escape.

JigSaw : If you feel that way why hasvent you off'd yourself?
Its a natural instinct to want to survive, overcoming that is not generally a desire of most people.

Depressed/angry people.
Hence why you should have to pass a psychiatric evaluation to get one, tbh, same with driving licenses. You dont want to give these things to people that fly off the handle over the slightest thing, theyre time bombs.

Elara :

Considering it would essentially be impossible to remove all americas guns, and its such a divise topic, that is a very good middle ground.
However, while i can see benefits, I dont think 2 years Military service would be allowed to pass. I would suggest in its place, that you need to, at your own expense, pass several government test, not just on safety and use of the weapon, but on your mental state as an individual, given ana gression rating etc. If statistically it seems likely youd jump to deadly force for something like a burglar (who isnt even holding a gun) I dont think they are responsible enough to hold it.

And again, agree on actually trying to solve the root problems.
I think equally that all gun owners should be required to keep there guns secure when not on there person (as in locked away), and given liability if it causes damage because they didnt do this. Basically enforce the point that they are dangerous and need to be treated a little more seriously than many people currently treat them.






Incidentally, i do think imprisonment is worse than death if its a long term, although many prisons have too many luxuries, in the uk many have flat screens in there cell.
Equally leaving them to rot isnt much use if they are going to be released, there's not enough emphasis on rehabilitation. Although thats not really relevant to the topic at hand.

Sword legion :
If it is too much hassle to get one mayve you should ask yourself if you really need it. If you do then just be glad its reducing the likely hood of an absolute fruit cake getting his hands on one. A couple of weeks isnt a long time, especially when its aimed at improving civic security.

I wouldnt neccessarily say in most cases the defender overcomes the attacker, but i would carry that to any kind of attack.
If drugs were legal how many more people do you think would be using them?

Im not actually arguing for no guns (although honestly, if america had none, i would think it was a bad idea to change that) but less people with them. People just dont think about the fact it is a weapon, and dont take them seriously.
If however,weapons like assault rifles were illegal, the costs and difficulty in procurement would be far greater, and the likely hood of an average joe nutcase getting their hands on one substantially lower. If they have a pistol and try a shootout, most pistols would hold between 6 and 12 rounds, and fire far slower. While there is a good chance of injury the likely hood of death is far lower, by about shot 4 or 5 someone could jump him/her.
But again, its less likely with automatic weapons taken out of the equation.
A shotgun could still result in a few deaths, the best bet there would be get out of his range. Its a lot harder to conceal a shotgun though.

thenumberone : That is kinda why I think the idea is good but not quite there yet.

I have asked people around here if there is a psych evaluation required as part of the background check (I live in a rural area, there are tons of hunters here)... they told me that no, there is not. However, you will be denied if you have ever been prescribed anti-depressants. That is as close as it gets, and that is not good enough.

I would also like to point out that all of these hunters, 90% of which are very conservative politically, all state that they agree that assault rifles and extended clip magazines and other such military grade weapons should not in any way be available to the public. Which is what the President was saying during his public address yesterday. The extreme pro-gun people would have you believe that they are going after all of the guns, taking away the 2nd Amendment... but it is simply not true. They want to ban assault rifles, take away the ability to get high magazine clips and close all those loopholes that allow 40% of gun sales to go on without a background check. It is very common sense reform.

Sword legion : And now you think that owning a gun is the solution to all problems. Do you think that you might be a big biased in that perception? And what prevents the shooter from taking out the teacher first, taking their gun and then using the gun on the children, thus extending their rampage?

And if a teacher shot a bystander before the shooter, especially a child, they would be lumped in with the shooter by society. People that have lost their children do not care about anything beyond wanting their killer punished. "You shouldn't have tried to be a hero!" Bam, lost their job and ostracized from society... but at least no jail because it was an accident. But the psychological damage is done.

I am going though school right now to be a teacher, so I have my own bias and I admit this. I don't think that on top of everything else that I am required to learn to have the right to teach children that I should have to now obtain a gun license and learn how to shoot. We are taught that violence does not belong in the classroom, and having a teacher with a gun just makes that hypocritical... because to make that gun effective it would have to be in on my person with the safety off at all times just in case a shooter busts through the door. That second of delay to get it from the drawer or take the safety off means that I or my students might be dead because the shooter has a rapid-fire assault rifle and just sprays the room with bullets.

No.

Those teachers did everything they could to hide their students, to try and protect them. Some succeeded, others could not. I would do whatever I could, but I don't think having a gun would be any more effective than physically assaulting the guy or trying to hide.

I said it before and I will say it again, reform and improved mental health screenings are more effective than making me have to get a gun. If the country says that I have to wait two years to get my credential so that I can teach your children history, then you should have to wait that two weeks before you buy a gun. The only people that complain about that are people with stuff they are trying to hide.

Elara : I thought that I already answered that question. If a teacher has a gun, it doesn't guarantee that the classroom is safe, but is gives the 
teacher a chance to shoot the villain. Even if the teacher shoots a kid and then murderer, she has saved the lives of all the other children.
Even if the mass murderer shoots everyone in one class, that makes a lot of noise. Don't you think that someone else nearby would here it?
The teachers in the other classrooms would hear it. Then those teachers could pull out their guns and surprise the murderer.
Phychological damage? That can be repaired, I've heard stories where people learn to finally forgive themselves for terrible mistakes.


If the teacher has a gun she is not a hypocrite, that would make the police force a huge group of hypocrites just because they have guns although they disapprove of civil violence.

A gun is a tool. You can use it to do good things and evil things.

Gun control is not the answer. Can criminals get drugs although those are illegal?

Yes.

They can get guns just as easily.

I don't believe that violence solves everything, you can talk peaceably to leaders of another nation, but not a nutcase on a shooting spree.



If these tragedies are to ever stop, we must return, parents must raise their kids in strong moral values.
The government cannot solve all of societies problems.