Okay, it was just a guess. Do you know?
Overall, the USA is more economically well off than Japan:
I meant with BUYING and purchasing them. If you walk into a gun store obviously drunk, the dealer has a right to refuse to sell. STATES are different when it comes to all kinds of restrictions. Also, just because they ALLOW it doesn't mean that people will do it.
Quote:"Tennessee is one of four states, along with Arizona, Georgia and Virginia, that recently enacted laws explicitly allowing loaded guns in bars. (Eighteen other states allow weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol.)" So, not so much.
What kind of misbegotten logic is that? What don't we just make murder legal then? Just because you allow murder doesn't mean that people will do it. Ridiculous! Purposely allowing guns into bars is the equivalent of selling guns to a drunk. 95% of the people in bars are there to drink alcohol. Some will be able to handle their drinks, some won't. Allowing anyone who gets drunk to have guns as an invitation to recklessness.
Quote:You're being illogical. The point is that driving tests create a barrier to people who don't know how to drive from accessing cars./quote]That can be ONE of the purposes, driving tests are mostly for people to be ABLE to drive!
No. That's not what driving tests are for at all. Anyone can learn how to drive without a test. A test gives you a license and without a license, you're driving illegally.
You do realize that there is vehicular homicide and manslaughter, and that people can be negligent, don't you? That's a lot DIFFERENT than a regular car accident.
Quote:Accidents happen DESPITE that.
What's your point?
Many people DON'T use their guns, so just making that a blanket rule wouldn't apply to a lot of people.
Quote:People are not forced to take a mandatory gun safety course right now even though guns are deadlier than cars.
That simply makes no sense. If they never have to use their guns, then they don't need them. If they need a gun, that means they will have to use it. You will never need something that you never use. That's inherently contradictory. Therefore a mandatory gun training course would be wise for every gun owner to show them how to use a gun effectively and safely.
I was saying that there are cops who MISUSE and have misused their weapons, and or have shot or killed unarmed suspects or innocent people. You wouldn't argue against cops having guns because some cops misuse them, would you?
Quote:And I don't know what you're talking about with regards to cops. Cops go through intensive training on how to use guns and of course they use guns in practice. My stepfather is a cop. I should know. Cops may never have to fire a shot through their whole career, but they certainly are trained to know how to shoot and how to maximize safety with the weapon.
It depends. If the level of misuse outweighed the pros of their usage, yes, then they shouldn't carry guns. In fact, the police in many countries don't carry guns. But again, cops go through intensive training they must pass to become a cop. If cops misuse their weapons, that is in spite of their training. Gun owners should all receive training. They may still misuse their weapons, but again, that will be despite that training.
The guns are not going to go away, though. And if more people have guns yet the crime rate was DECREASING, it's obviously not the guns that are the problem.
Quote:One doesn't need to hate guns to recognize that there are way too many guns in the United States and that's what's responsible for the ridiculously high rate of gun deaths in this country.
But more people don't have guns. The rate of gun ownership has been on the decline. Gun sales have remain leveled or increased not because more gun-less people are buying guns but because people who already own guns are buying more guns. Also, guns can go away if you change the laws and the culture.
Of course they shouldn't. Drug laws or bans have MADE criminals out of just regular drug users or addicts.
Quote:And most people don't overdose and die on illicit drugs so those who do die shouldn't be held against people who don't die?
So you're against all illicit drugs being illegal. You think heroine should be legal?
That's a fair point, but you're going to have quite a difficult time with that.
Quote:If the Second Amendment is responsible for 30,000+ deaths a year, then the Second Amendment should be amended.
The difficulty of the solution can be tackled after we agree on a solution. If the Second Amendment is a part of the problem, then it should be involved in the solution.
Quote:Also, IT HAS been amended.
When has the Second Amendment been amended?
Quote:And again, you're lumping in ALL gun deaths while not paying attention to self-defense, justifiable homicide or suicide.
Because, contrary to your claims, suicide in the vast majority of instances, is a very bad thing, and justifiable homicide is a very rare thing. All you're arguing is that because stricter gun laws wouldn't solve everything, we shouldn't have them.
Overall, the USA is more economically well off than Japan:>
What kind of misbegotten logic is that? What don't we just make murder legal then?>
Said by NOBODY! Where do you get this from?
Just because you allow murder doesn't mean that people will do it. Ridiculous>
Most people wouldn't go out and start killing, they have morals and limits. I have faith in my fellow man.
Purposely allowing guns into bars is the equivalent of selling guns to a drunk. 95% of the people in bars are there to drink alcohol.>
I don't think that it's a good idea. Is it MANDATORY, though? And do the bartenders have shotguns? There are also schools that arm their teachers.
No. That's not what driving tests are for at all. Anyone can learn how to drive without a test. A test gives you a license and without a license, you're driving illegally.>
Yet we don't allow certain segments of the population to drive, and you can lose your license.
What's your point?>
That people should be allowed to drive because other people use their cars for criminal intents and purposes. Just like responsible gun owners should be allowed to buy or get a gun because other people use their guns for criminal purposes, or buy alcohol because other people use it for illegal purposes.
If they never have to use their guns, then they don't need them>
Not true at all! People get guns for all kinds of reasons, it doesn't mean that they always use them. You can get one for protection, but still not use it. Many (Even most from some reports that I have read.)police officers don't use their guns, but they still need them. There are also people who have insurance that they never use. A training course would be beneficial, but certainly can't be made mandatory.
In fact, the police in many countries don't carry guns.>
That's nice, but they do in this country.
If cops misuse their weapons, that is in spite of their training. Gun owners should all receive training>
Regular gun owners are different than police and security officers. And most gun violence is not due to accidental misuse. Also, cops have no legal obligation to protect you.
But more people don't have guns. The rate of gun ownership has been on the decline.>
Were you not paying attention during The Obama presidency? Obama himself even said that he was good for gun sales. After mass shootings, gun sales go up. There are said to be more guns than people, so if guns themselves were the problem we would pretty much all be dead. And no, guns will not just go away, people have been trying for decades. Sorry! And one thing that you don't note about gun crime is that it usually occurs in poor areas and how it is connected to poverty. No amount of gun laws are going to help if you still have those conditions.
So you're against all illicit drugs being illegal. You think heroine should be legal?>
YES! Maybe not outright legal, but at least decriminalized. You can't imprison someone for just being a heroin addict (Unless they commit a crime to harbor said addiction.), just like you don't imprison people for being alcoholic or addicted to caffeine or tobacco. Also, the big problem is PRESCRIPTION drugs! And opioid's.
When has the Second Amendment been amended?>
In plenty of court cases.
Because, contrary to your claims, suicide in the vast majority of instances, is a very bad thing,>
I didn't say that it wasn't.
and justifiable homicide is a very rare thing.>
Not at all. Even the CDC study said that it's not.
All you're arguing is that because stricter gun laws wouldn't solve everything, we shouldn't have them.>
Again, not at all. I said that it wouldn't stop mass killings or school shootings.