Guns do not kill people, people kill people

Hunting is murder, and therefore not a good use for guns. encouraging people to kill animals leads to people killing people. if you say you can kill a deer cos it's brown and doesn't speak English then with all the anti-muslim rhetoric it's a lot easier to think maybe you can kill a Muslim who's brown and doesn't speak english.

we wouldn't need self-defence guns if we had a proper criminal justice system. mass gun ownership is a mark of a failed state.

if a kid grows up in a traumatic situation that seems like a good reason to intervene so they never become violent with guns or knives.

the easier you make it to kill, the more it will be done. the existence of guns creates an excuse to kill and then it's just about finding a reason. 

if you believe hurt people hurt people then giving them guns just makes them more potent at the hurt they inflict.

i think it's fine to ban knives in areas where there's a lot of the traumatised people that you mentioned: like on housing estates. yes 70% of them (the regular people) will have to use some kind of chopper gadget instead of knives, but in areas with high violent crime potential, this ban will protect people and make it much harder for the bad kids to be effective in their violence and cruelty . i think gangs of people with mandolines and graters will be less potent and deadly.

“Hunting is murder” is a moral assertion, not a fact. The analogy with a deer and a Muslim is horrendous because if you didn’t know, a Muslim is a human, unlike a deer. And when a Muslim is a citizen of the USA, they have protection from murder, unlike deer. So I don’t know where that argument leads to.

Once again your arguments are not logical, how does having gun ownership a mark of a failed state? Are you saying it because our government is so bad we have to protect ourselves from it? If so you just defined the reason why we have the second amendment, from Britain in the 1700s, and our country hasn’t had a coup since so i consider it successful. Self defense guns have nothing to do with the judicial system, they have to do with intruders and criminals, such as the illegals you support, but that is a different debate.

Yes we should intervene when kids have a hard time, but how? Maybe its the families fault for not supporting and parenting them properly, how is them doing acts of violence the guns fault if the family could’ve intervened, your argument supports mine.

The creation does not make an excuse to kill, where did you get that from? It’s about finding a reason? Probably considering that most have problems with anxiety, weak family bonds, addiction, etc. Name one person who said “I murdered that guy because i had a gun”. Like what the heck.

You think we are giving those hurt people guns? No! I’m not arguing for gun control, I’m arguing for the second amendment. We aren’t giving them guns, They illegally buy them through gangs, etc.

Sure let’s go ahead and ban knives in major cities where there is knife violence, what problems do you think this will cause? No spreading bread on butter, no carving wood statures or figures, nothing. This argument actually makes me mad, why not ban cars while we are add it since there are more car violence than gun and knives. Point is, we need knives. Here’s a fun fact for you, beside pencils/pens and forks, knives are the MOST used household kitchen tool according to numerous sources.

are you giving up on this debate too?

hunting to kill animals outside of self defence is most definitely murder. 

i never said i support illegals.

yes, Muslims are humans. what i was describing was about how hunting changes the mindset around death, not whether the govt says it's okay to kill humans.

no, mass gun ownership is the result of the govt failing to protect its people. not cos you have to shoot govt workers to defend yourselves. the laws are set up for the guilty and crimes are treated like mistakes. criminals are not incentivised to learn their lesson. many of them get out because the cell is needed for an even worse criminal.

guns are fine at home, where the police couldn't get to you in time, but not out on the street where old people and children could grab them. they make cops nervous, so they're more likely to shoot you even though you might have a legal gun.

i said i'd be fine with banning useful tools that are often misused in the areas that they are misused (for gang violence and murder). it's extreme, but murder is more extreme.

many companies sell small knobs of butter. if you're a decent person living in bad area, you can put the individual serving of butter in the centre of the bread and press the other slice to it. it will be spread to near the edges.

if there was an area with 10x the car deaths, maybe joyriders or gang cars etc, then restricting car ownership there could also make sense. it's reasonable to restrict tools, even when those tools have legitimate purposes, to avoid people who misuse those tools to do great harm they couldn't otherwise.

guns kill people because a lot of people lack the physical strength to wield and manipulate knives to cause fatal harm. they also embolden people. generally speaking, if it's harder, fewer people will do it. and the difference between the number of people who don't do it cos it's hard are all the instances where guns kill people, instead of people killing.

Animals are not given constitutional rights, I don’t even know why I’m explaining it to you. You could be saying it for the sake of idealism, but you have to be literal and use legal knowledge to give arguments. Killing animals could be wrong in your heart but if you have a hunting license, legally own a gun, and only hunt in legal areas, it is not murder nor animal cruelty. You compared the two by saying directly “if its brown and doesn’t speak English, you can kill it” I’m saying you are missing the part of what it means, which is actually being a human with those rights to life.

Your argument about gun ownership stemming from the justice system I still don’t understand. I agree that criminals need harsher punishments, but how does this have to do with gun ownership? Gun ownership stems from constitutional rights mainly, culture, tradition, sporting, hunting, etc.

But these tools have purpose used more than for murder, once again, why shouldn’t we ban cars if they are used for violence and have more deaths than guns and knives. You say you’re fine with restricting cars? Then how are we going to move with fast transportation to places, the world can not function without cars, it’s not something we can’t adapt to not having, same with knives and guns.

Guns killing people isn’t the cause of knives being to hard to handle, objectively speaking, guns are way harder to handle than knives.

i don't think whatever the law says is moral just because they say it. by that logic there would have been no reason to try to end slavery cos the govt said it was legal. and back then there was no dna or genetic testing to prove that black people with their afro hair and broad noses and non-western phenotypes were human - they could have been assumed to be a similar species, even by good faith actors.

killing any person or animal for sport/fun is immoral. that's not even disputed by the govt.

guns don't require much physical strength, just practice. petite women, who're weaker than most teen boys, handle them comfortably.

as ive said multiple times, I'm not saying that it's legal to murder humans but if you think it's okay to kill anyone or anything outside of self defence or hunger then it creates a permission structure in your mind that killing even when you don't have to is okay. after this if you feel like a person is bad you'll be more open to them dying and then to you killing them and if you also have gun access then the people that annoy you are more likely to die.

I'm not excusing human culpability in crime, but without the gun you're less likely to kill someone. killing with guns is easy compared to baseball bats or knives. you can get out of the way of a car sometimes, but not a bullet.

more aggressive restrictions for more dangerous people is still reasonable to me, if you disagree i'd like to know why. we don't let ex-cons get guns, even though they're more likely to need them to protect themselves from old gang associates who have beef with them or don't like that the ex-con is trying to go it straight now. 

if the govt says we're treating violent crimes like mistakes and not going to punish them harshly, especially as it pertains to young offenders, then people will report these crimes less often cos they know it's not a priority and when the criminals get out of prison or are done with their community service that they'll remember who testified against them etc. this leads to regular people thinking the best way to protect myself is with a gun. if most people think this way it results in mass gun ownership. this system of violence is where crime is only punished in nominal ways to seem like the govt is on top of it,  is why i say mass gun ownership is a mark of a failed state, cos protecting it's people is a paramount goal of a good govt.

the world would and does function without cars. public transport exists.