your assumption is a false assumption and another hackneyed lie told by the right.

Santa what is your suggestion to fix this problem?

I love this logic: If a terrorist wants to attack, he will attack anyway so why making it harder? Lets just make it much easier by giving everyone a gun. And Hurraaaaah!

It turns out that it was our destiny that everyone will shoot everyone else! Yaaaay! Destiny fulfilled! ¬.¬

Even the webdiplomacy's graphics has more depth than such analyses...

Oh and secondly, people, Gandhi has taught us that revolutions do not need weapons. See what happened in Syria when people got guns and rebelled against Esad? The whole country is destroyed completely. It is not because of rebels or Esad. It is because of constant and violent use of arms. The peace never took place since the war started and that is what we got. Is that the revolution you want? Constantly warring groups, then international inventions?

Who won the Syrian war?
THE WEAPON MANUFACTURERS, WEAPON SELLERS ALL AROUND THE WORLD.

You cannot make the world more peaceful as long as you carry a gun.

Giving everyone a gun would make similar terrorist attacks on civilians considerably harder, in fact. Clearly there are huge negative impacts to such a policy that outweigh the gains considerable, but if you looked at terrorist attacks in isolation an armed civilian population is something of a plus.

But you have done nothing to convince me that banning gun ownership would help. It would be akin to banning cars in an attempt to stop me going to work everyday. You upset everyone else who happens to have a car, and all you achieve is to cause me the minor inconvenience of taking the bus or riding a bike. (Or indeed just driving in illegally).

You want people to bring guns into a nightclub, Octy?

Do try and read what I write if you want to comment on it, Demo. Obviously that is a flawed idea. I was simply pointing out that it is wrong to suggest that doing so wouldn't have significantly hindered the success of this attack.

Sure, but the number of causalities on the regular would rise so high that it wouldn't be worth it. I guess *eventually* one of the intoxicated club goers would have probably hit him. But definitely not a solution to the problem as violence would rise on a regular due to reckless use of the weapon.

I don't care if there is an Orlando every month. I refuse to relinquish any of my rights for the sake of security. It's that simple for me.

Live free or die.

That's ironic because there basically is an Orlando every single month. More than that, really.

You should go work on building up some moral character, Chaqa.

So now it is immoral to stand up for our rights?

I'm not wishing it upon anyone, I just think our liberty is more important than security.

Your "rights" are infringed upon every day in the name of security. After 9/11, your "rights" were infringed upon mercilessly. You couldn't even take a fucking box cutter on a plane until recently and as far as I know you still can't even bring a bottle of shampoo on vacation because they decided planes not blowing up or flying into buildings after being hijacked was more important. When a guy tried to bring a bomb on board in his underwear, they expanded their scanning to the point where it's a little bit personal and arguably infringes on your right to privacy, but lo and behold, you can't sneak a bomb on board in your underwear anymore.

When you say that we shouldn't respond to aggressive terrorist acts and mass murders by enacting laws that make them more difficult to carry out, yes, defending our "rights" is immoral. I need to go take a shower, I feel dirty having gotten involved in this shitshow.

And you act like those attacks on our rights are effective. The TSA hasn't stopped a single terror attack since it was founded. All it has done is invade our privacy.

Do planes regularly blow up or fly into buildings?

Honestly, 9/11 was probably a one-off event. It probably wouldn't have happened again. Shootings like this one are so fucking common that it honestly takes the scourge of the earth to simply accept them and be selfish enough to say your personal freedom (which wouldn't even take a dent with increased gun legislation) is more important than the hundreds if not thousands of lives that have been taken and countless more permanently scarred by endless gun violence.

I'm just going to leave this here:

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

No one is taking your weapons! what is being imposed is that we require pre-purchase screenings of individuals against national databases which flag those with mental health issues and known affiliations with hate groups. What is being imposed is tighter regulations on the sale of weapons, so that each weapon is accompanied by a "title" of some kind which can be kept track of. These are the same requirements as we have for motor vehicles; yet no one is in a crying rage over the government stealing our right to drive how we want, when we want, where we want. Look, I get it; you have a hobby, or hunt for survival, and don't want that encroached on; but consider for a second the impact what I described would have on you. At first you'd have some discomfort and inconvenience but after the initial registrations nothing would change until you tried to sell your firearm. The real loser here is the big-gun manufacturers who lose money as people spend less on firearms (since it's inconvenient people will naturally but less guns). It's no surprise then that the NRA is heavily funded by these same manufacturers. And I'm sorry but if you are arguing against the lightest of gun control (mind you not gun bans) then you have become a pawn in a game of profits where the only casualties are your neighbors, friends, and family....

Also why is America still debating this while countries like Australia, England, and our other democratic capitalist contemporaries have already figured it out? Really, why?

Known mental health issues - as determined by who? What criteria? Do we allow legislators to determine which medical issues block gun ownership?

Affiliation to hate groups - again, who determines a hate group? What criteria?

And adding to both of these: as the right to bear arms is a RIGHT, it can only be taken away with due process. We've got a god awful track record here. Senator Ted Kennedy was on a do not fly list for years. Why should we expect these lists to be better managed?

Who decides to put you on these lists? Some would consider groups like Black Lives Matter a hate group. They certainly attack other people at times. Yet others would say they're doing good. No group is 100% black and white (well, I guess the KKK is 100% white).

There is no "Right to own a motor vehicle" in our Constitution. It's not a fair comparison. We don't require someone to be certified to write a book, give a speech, or practice their religion freely. The 2nd Amendment is the same - it shall not be infringed, and it is a RIGHT.


I'm not arguing against the lightest gun control. I'm in favor of background checks, because someone being convicted of a violent felony means they have lost their right to own a firearm. The difference here is DUE PROCESS.

You need to understand this fundamental fact of rights in America. It would require a Constitutional Amendment to change this, and you'd never get that past the states.


Oh yes, I'm a pawn of the gun industry. Of course. Or perhaps I enjoy my rights and believe in what this country was founded upon. Perhaps I don't think the vast majority should be punished for the actions of a few (often heard from more liberal posters as how we should view Muslims).

Tell me: if it is bad to say we should ban Muslims because some Muslims are extremists, why is it not also bad to say we should ban guns because some guns are used by extremists? The truth? They're the same. Both being Muslim and owning a gun are fundamental rights. Anyone trying to ban either is doing the same thing: attacking the rights of the American people. And that is something I will always fight.

@jamiet,

"Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it [buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there does not appear to be any substitution effects, specifically that reduced access to firearms may have let those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods. Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearms deaths."

From the abstract of Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of Melboune University, 2008.

Furthermore, any suggestion of any sort of mandatory ban or buy back program for current weapons would not be possible in the United States. Attempting to ban all guns or all semiautomatic guns would literally start a revolution. Background checks and registration are the common sense answer that can work in the US.

Now where Chaqa is coming from I understand. This is the problem with the government handling these sort of background checks. There has to be a system of checks and balances - whats to stop the government from claiming members of conservative groups are "suspects" or something and preventing them? Or any other, liberal/LGBT/racial/etc. group that can be targeted by a government. I support background checks, but we need to come up with a fair and objective system for it.

@"No one is taking your weapons! what is being imposed is that we require pre-purchase screenings of individuals against national databases which flag those with mental health issues and known affiliations with hate groups. "

And you might note that the 2nd amendment specifies 'a well regulated-militia' - which suggests that regulation of who can exercise their rights. (Of course requiring membership of a militia/gun club might be one form of regulation)

Very important to make sure your militia has a good supply of prunes amongst the ration packs, it must be said. Whoever wrote that amendment knew what they were talking about.

@ Chaqa - if it comes down to your right to have fun with guns, and the rights of 49 LGBT people not to be murdered, I care more about the latter than the former.

@Chaqa ... being issued a gun license or a card should require a psychological examination, similarly to how you have to take a vision test (or submit some evidence that you took and passed a vision test) before you are issued a driver's license. It's not a huge hurdle and it doesn't necessarily rule out someone with a mental disorder or disability, but it will certainly make people with violent tendencies less likely to get their hands on a gun.

@KC ... we already use government-sponsored and government-handled background checks. Employers use them. Your school used them. Whichever military branch you joined uses them (sorry, I completely forget). They're already a common thing.

I own two handguns. I have my card and proper licensing in my state. I was also suicidal six years ago. Had the store that sold me two guns been aware that I was suicidal six years ago, they would have had serious second thoughts about selling me a gun. Had the people that approved my application as a firearm owner been aware of it, I imagine that they would have questioned this action as well. This is the kind of information that someone issuing licenses to buy a defensive weapon, gun or otherwise, should have access to. I shouldn't be allowed to own my guns.

mental health issues as determined by your certified expert. Just like getting a drivers license; I go to a medical professional of my choice and he signs that I am healthy. Hate groups as identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. What is the problem with melding these polices into pre-existing social and governmental infrastructure?

If you don't think you should be allowed to own guns, why do you own guns?

Perhaps more relevantly, how, practically speaking, would the gun license issuer become aware of such things?

A lack of due process.

Octavious, I own guns because I want a more effective defensive weapon than I had. I carry a blade on me almost all the time, but I want more. As such, I bought a revolver. After going to the range a number of times and learning more and more about the guns (two things that should also be required before issuing a gun license), I bought a semi-auto pistol. I prefer it, it's much nicer and looks sleeker, the sights are much better, and I am really happy with it. I don't see myself as a threat to go out and kill people. I don't think I would ever fire a gun on someone, just as I've never pulled a blade on someone nor had the inclination to do so.

Part of the licensing application should be proof of passing a psychological exam, Octavious. You don't just call up an 800 number hotline and ask for a gun license. You have to fill out some paperwork.