11yo shots grandmother in Arizona

@assault plunger thank you for being someone who I can have a reasonable discussion with. Let me sort of "clarify" things that you had concerns with. First off, what I mean by "I am in favor of more gun control, for no other reason than I dont think that normal, law-abiding citizens should be restricted from purchasing firearms because of the people who misuse them" is that I dont think that we should outright ban all guns in the US just because some people misuse them. I just think that we need to find out what types of people commit these crimes and how do we prevent these types of people from getting firearms. Obviously not all people who are mentally unstable go out and commit mass shootings, but since a large number of people who do commit mass shootings are people who are shown to be mentally unstable, I think that preventing these types of people from getting a gun would considerably lower the amount of gun violence in the US. "Although I do actually favor debate as far as who should or shouldn't be able to buy a gun (which seems to be where you go with this Mio) versus what type of guns should be available to the public." Yeah, I'm not in favor of banning specific types of guns. Don't worry. I concede the point that a lot of things that I have stated might be difficult to implement in practice (especially the point on gun related misdemeanors). I guess I didnt suggest how to implement them, but my point is that we should be trying different things and analyzing how it affects gun violence in the US. For example, if I were to implement the idea of the FBI being allowed to put you on a no-gun list, I would probably implement it in a way such that due process and appeal rights were required (even if I didnt explicitly state it when first posing my argument). When I state some of these things that I think we should do, I'm posing a hypothetical in which I'm implying it can be implemented perfectly. For the sake of discussion I think that it's OK to do so (since I'm not really saying "This is what we should do", but rather "our current system sucks. We need to try and experiment with different ideas"), but pragmatically I would want these things to be either extremely well implemented, or not implemented at all. On your response to "guns don't kill people - people do"... While I see your point, I do think that comparison to other developed countries is necessary. If we were to just look at our gun violence as a country, it could be dropping, but it could still be massive when comparing gun violence to Germany, France, the UK, etc... Just because it might be dropping doesnt make it necessarily good when compared to similar countries. Yeah I agree with the fact that we shouldnt compare the US to underdeveloped countries, but I think that we should be comparing it to other countries who are on the same level as us in terms of economics, institutions, access to education, access to jobs, ect (to avoid confusion, I'm not saying that these are reasons why gun violence exists, but more of me stating why we arent comparable to underdeveloped countries). We need a comparison to know how well we are doing in a specific area. Absolute numbers mean nothing if you dont have something to compare it to. As for the tyranny bit, I agree with you 100% that it is much harder to tyrannize an armed populace. In fact, I would reference the middle east to show that this is true (look at Mosul, for example). I just dont think that the hypothetical "maybe" of some tyrannical dictatorship is worth how many people die per year due to gun violence. "how much if any experience do you have with firearms?" With firearms themselves, none. I just do a lot of studying on political issues and I stay away from the mainstream media, as I find it to be incredibly biased.

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if my post is redundant. In the Philippines we have crazies too, but I have yet to hear about some KID shooting people at schools or things like this. Now I'm not saying there are no shootings here, in fact we have lots of gun related murder here but still, not as bad as young people killing innocent bystanders. I'd also like to mention People Power Revolution or Edsa revolution in ph. That's a Tyrannical government there and they conquered it through non-violence. I don't think mental illness is the culprit here, It's the negligence of gun owners. Why do they keep guns within children's reach?

There are a lot more people in America than the Philippines. So a lot more chances things can happen. Also an 11 year old isnt a "child". They are almost fully grown in terms of height, and if something is too tall then they can get a ladder, if it's locked in a safe they can find out the combination, if it's locked behind a door they can steal the key.

A lot of people don't understand what a right is - or that guns are a right and not some privilege. There isn't a single right more scrutinized and subject to restriction than guns. You apply the level of scrutiny and bureaucracy to any other right and people would burn cities to the ground. There is a lot of (and for good reason) talk about reducing gun violence in America. Unfortunately those who initiate such conversation are ignorant and biased. For starters it is assumed as fact that the presence of guns is a net negative (in other words do more harm than good) in American society. There are a lot of things wrong with what gun control proponents will lump in with "gun violence" or "gun deaths". Even defensive death by gun (for example a woman who shoots a disgruntled ex hell bent on harming her) would be lumped in the same statistic as a lunatic shooting up a mall - the commonality being the cause of death was a gunshot wound (or related to it). This is misleading as it equates things that are remarkably different. The statistics that gun control proponents value most are very misleading and there are some very silly concessions made in doing so. First gun control proponents highly value per capita basis statistics for murder rate. While it is certainly a worthwhile metric it should be one of many metrics used to paint a full picture. Many jurisdictions that have a high gun crime rate are also very population dense. The pure population density of these areas masks the seriousness of the problem in these select areas. Yes this is me making the "Chicago" argument. Most of the areas that have the highest occurrences of gun death / crime are those with the most stringent gun controls. This is how people can claim that "Chicago really isn't that bad" and that the "red states" have the higher rates. People often complain when Chicago is brought up that the guns are legally bought in Indiana and then just transported over state lines but those violate Chicago's laws. Furthermore if it really is the presence and access of these guns that is the problem why isn't Indiana a murderous hotbed like Chicago? It just logically doesn't add up that there are more occurrences of gun crime in gun restricted areas compared to less restricted areas. While I have no hard data on this handy I would imagine with the fervor of the gun control crowd if there was clear data that the problem with guns is in areas with lax gun laws we would be constantly bombarded with them but we aren't. People often do not dissect what gets lumped together in certain statistics such as a "gun death". To an anti-gunner any death by a gun is equivalent. I find this really lazy intellectually and shows a lack of desire to really understand the issue. If the desire is truly to curb gun *violence* shouldn't data be compiled that is purely that of gun violence and not other things. In other words many other things get lumped into a "gun violence" metric that are hardly violent at all. While suicide is a death by a gun (the ones that use a gun of course) I see suicide as a different matter and discussion and isn't equivalent to things like assault or other harm associated with gun violence. Suicide is a totally different discussion in my book and has a different set of questions and answers than other "truer" gun violence. This is one of the biggest reasons gun violence looks a lot more like a problem than it really is. About two thirds of gun deaths annually are suicide meaning that in annual metrics true gun violence (the thing we are supposed to be working on stopping) is already overstated by a wide margin. Part of the problem is that no side on this debate views the same information as (equally) important. For an anti-gunner any death is equivalent and the circumstances around the death are irrelevant. This in turn lumps a lot of different issues into one umbrella and makes problem solving damn near impossible. I don't see any widely discussed issue where there is a fervent misunderstanding on one side of the debate about the entire other side of the debate. Anti-gunners (anybody pro gun control whether in a limited or heavy capacity) don't understand pro gun people at all - they don't understand Our nations history with guns Why it is arguably our most valuable and cherished *RIGHT* Why we cherish guns Why we don't like the idea of the government being the deciding factor in exercise of our right Anything about the function or operation of a firearm The idea that guns can have positive and life saving functions That guns are (viewed as) a tool - and what functions that tool serves The worldview and thought processes of those who are pro gun There is probably more than that but off the top of my head that is what I've got. In order for us to come together the gun control crowd has to actually want to learn about what they are so fervently pushing. Since it is our RIGHT the burden of proof is on the gun control crowd - plain and simple.