Guns.

[SteelHorse]

Now this is fun!

I support the right to bear arms! Anyone entering my house with the intent to do harm would soon be stopped. Anyone attempting to do harm anywhere near me in the public would soon be stopped as well. I carry a handgun everywhere I go (you'll never know though). So far haven't ever had to use it and Lord willing it stays that way. Me and the rest of my family (including my GF) have guns and carry them and know when and in what instances to use them (mostly when they have a nice looking deer in their crosshairs so we can get some free meat to eat!).

I agree with Drew on its not about the gun itself, but about the person behind it.

Also I don't mind if it was harder to get a gun, it wouldn't really affect me since I already have all the guns I really need (surely not all I want), but the majority of the shootings lately have all been in "gun free zones" or in areas that have more stringent gun laws. I also disagree with you when you say that the guns used in all the mass shootings were purchased legally. I disagree. Also all you hear about are all the "harm guns do", but unless you truly care you never hear about all the times horrible crimes were stopped by honest and legal gun owners. Look it up and you'll find it pretty easily.

I don't think you should believe every stat you read on the internet Mike.

Now down vote me to hell bitches!

 

[MikeK]

@SteelHorse
It is indeed about the person who bears the gun. But mostly everyone can bear it in the US. If no one bears anything, no handicapped people and no robbers bear guns either = people are much safer.
Other way round you could kill every handicapped or depressed person and every criminal at sight. Then no people bearing guns would do harm. But that second way doesn't sound like a plan, does it.
[DOUBLEPOST=1452124004][/DOUBLEPOST]As regards the stats, Wikipedia provides close figures with references to more or less trustworthy sources.

 

[NickHouston]

@SteelHorse
It is indeed about the person who bears the gun. But mostly everyone can bear it in the US. If no one bears anything, no handicapped people and no robbers bear guns either = people are much safer.
Other way round you could kill every handicapped or depressed person and every criminal at sight. Then no people bearing guns would do harm. But that second way doesn't sound like a plan, does it.
[DOUBLEPOST=1452124004][/DOUBLEPOST]As regards the stats, Wikipedia provides close figures with references to more or less trustworthy sources.

You seem to think criminals are deterred by law.

If this were the case, there simply would be no crime.

They should be much harder to get, yes. You should have to obtain a license for handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc all separately.
To obtain these licenses, a person should have to go through a comprehensive background check and then pass an extensive safety and upkeep course for the specific firearm class they want a license for. But an outright ban? Hell no.

Americans have a right to bear arms. That means you can't just go in and say "I don't like this so take it away". It also means you can't take away the ones you deem "unnecessary".

 

[Take]

Hey, it's a good thing Dutch people don't have easy access to guns, wouldn't want those idiots running around with them.

Yup, that moronic statement runs both ways.

Anyway, guns are neat, I support them. But can't really be bothered either way seeing as I don't own any.

There has been multiple tv programs about how easy it is to get guns in europe/holland. Some news reporter could get an AK within a week for like 2k.

 

[Maccabeus]

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/