Annoying Orange takes protestors' coats and wants no more gun-free zones

[RedGajin]

the solution isnt removing all guns from the equation, firearms are already way to widespread to do that. the solution is having stricter gun laws. anyone that thinks we shouldnt should educate themselves because theyre dipstuffs. the less handicaps (literally, handicaps) with guns the better

[Ad Bot]

[Tayasaurus]

-

[sir dooble]

This is a great example, if you were to remove guns from the law-abiding populous, then criminals can kill people with little to no resistance. I feel like I am overusing a meme when I say; Take a look at what happened in Paris, nobody had guns and lots of people died, if the civilians had guns in the buildings/areas where people were killed, less people would have died (given that someone would have the balls to pull a gun on one of the shooters.) I am for what Annoying Orange wants to do with the "no more safe zones" bull stuff, and I would actually prefer taking it a step further, teachers that have proper background checks and proper licenses should be able to carry firearms in the classroom. Saying that, the firearm should be in a safe under the teachers desk, and only taken out when there is a shooter in the building.

Now consider the difference in gun crime between France and the US outside of mass-shootings.
Is it worth it to have guns if it saves 20 people in a mass shooting, but there are 200 deaths in regular shootings inbetween the next mass shooting?

Also consider the rate of mass shootings in France versus the US. There were 2 quite horrific ones in Paris last year. There's at least 1 a week in the US, if not more.

You can't fight fire with fire.

[Col. Burton]

Now consider the difference in gun crime between France and the US outside of mass-shootings.

The populations are so largely different and the laws are on opposite sides of the spectrum. If you are just talking about gun violence that would make no sense at all since guns are heavily restricted in France (in comparison to the US gun laws). If you want to talk total violence/murder I would live to see some demographics for that, because its silly to compare two things that are in no way alike.

[Tayasaurus]

-

[Sheepocalypse]

IMO if people that aren't criminals were in possession of a concealed firearm there would be less crime.
"I'd like to go shoot up this mall however 50% or more people have a weapon on them."

[Col. Burton]

I think restricting firearms for law abiding citizens is the incorrect thing to do, because that's just making it easier for the criminal. The criminal is obviously going to obtain a gun via some illegal way. Unless there is a way to make it so criminals can't obtain weapons, which there obviously isn't, its almost handicapped to say "lets ban guns!"

[kanew2000]

IMO if people that aren't criminals were in possession of a concealed firearm there would be less crime.
"I'd like to go shoot up this mall however 50% or more people have a weapon on them."

most people who start a mass shooting with the intent to kill people probably don't expect to be alive afterwards

[sir dooble]

The populations are so largely different and the laws are on opposite sides of the spectrum. If you are just talking about gun violence that would make no sense at all since guns are heavily restricted in France (in comparison to the US gun laws). If you want to talk total violence/murder I would live to see some demographics for that, because its silly to compare two things that are in no way alike.

My point is that guncrime in France is low because guns are banned. Yes, that is very obvious (although it still speaks to the idea that banning guns would just leave criminals with guns, because criminals in France can still get guns, yet their gun crime is low).

Banning guns means far fewer regular gun crimes and deaths. It also means far fewer mass shootings. The Paris ones are unique, being terror attacks.
Legalising guns, plus making access easy, means more regular shootings, more mass shootings and more deaths. More deaths than you save from having civilians with guns in mass shootings.

It's also dependent on location as well, seeing that the US is a big target by many people with grievances due to us playing "world police" as of late.

The vast majority of your gun crimes, both smaller shootings and mass shootings, are carried out by US citizens, and not as terror attacks in retaliation for US international policy.

[Tayasaurus]

-

[sir dooble]

You can restrict guns down enough so that only recreational users have them.

Maybe the word 'banned' gives off the wrong impression. Guns are 'banned' in the UK, but my uncle owns two shotguns, and my friends dad has rifles, and I've been shooting.
But the control and regulation (both in purchasing, and in storing) is so much greater, and the range of available guns is so much smaller, that our guncrime is almost non-existant.


And at any rate, guns do create certain crimes. There's never going to be a replication of a mass-shooting at a school with just knives. In fact, the only place that ever seems to happen is Japan/China, where it's a whole group of people with knives.

[Zloff]

There's at least 1 a week in the US, if not more.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/04/mother-jones-left-claims-355-mass-shootings-2015-actual-number-4/

http://truthinmedia.com/fact-check-355-mass-shootings-far-2015/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/03/obamas-inconsistent-claim-on-the-frequency-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/

straight up stats from the bottom of the last article
http://www.scribd.com/doc/292008708/Mass-shooting-comparisons-Schildkraut-and-Elsass
not as bad as liberal media likes to make it seem

[Tayasaurus]

-

[DrenDran]

the solution isnt removing all guns from the equation, firearms are already way to widespread to do that. the solution is having stricter gun laws. anyone that thinks we shouldnt should educate themselves because theyre dipstuffs. the less handicaps (literally, handicaps) with guns the better

You can't just say "stricter gun laws" like its not incredibly vague.
What specifically are you proposing?

Some potential gun laws like background checks are quite reasonable. Others, like assault weapons bans, are pants-on-head handicapped.

Speaking of which i remember reading somewhere that the UKs knife crime has gone up a bit in 4 years in a 2% increase.

Yeah, Britain's other crime spiked when they removed guns. Not to mention "America's high gun death rate" is mostly Self Deletes and gang violence.

[Tayasaurus]

what i hate the most is the term "assault weapon" which gives any outlet a free misnomer to abuse whenever they please.