The US has the highest gun-related death rate

Well yes, Brazil had around 40,000 gun murders in 2010, compared to America's 12,000. Assuming you meant the United States of Brazil.

In Brazil you need a license to own a gun and you can't carry it outside your house. You also need to be 25 years old to legally own one (though you don't need to be 25 years old to be forced into a organization dedicated to killing whoever politicians want).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Yes, the United States is number 1 on the gun ownership list, but:

1. Correlation does not imply causation. It can be other things like mental health or maybe a terrorist organization starting with an I?
2. After a school near* me had a stabbing, there were absolutely no political motives. 20 people injured, 3 of which I know personally.
3. Switzerland is also pretty damn high on that list, and you don't hear about terrorist attacks or shootings in there. They have relatively
strict borders compared to the EU also.

* http://heavy.com/news/2014/04/franklin-regional-high-school-multiple-stabbing/

Well yes, Brazil had around 40,000 gun murders in 2010, compared to America's 12,000. Assuming you meant the United States of Brazil.
I specified first world country, which you clearly didn't read, as such Brazil is an invalid example, as it does not have high enough living standards to meet HDR values for such a recognition, sitting at .755, which is below the .9 threshold, for reference, US is at .915.

1. Correlation does not imply causation. It can be other things like mental health or maybe a terrorist organization starting with an I?
While that is true, As I already specified, 3/40s of US gun related deaths are accidental, as such your suggested issues are not really supportable either. I assume, given the lack of research on this topic, thanks to the NRA defunding any attempt to do any research that the amount of guns you have lying around increases the odds of an accidental shooting.

2. After a school near* me had a stabbing, there were absolutely no political motives. 20 people injured, 3 of which I know personally. And what does this have to do with our discussion involving gun availability?

3. Switzerland is also pretty damn high on that list, and you don't hear about terrorist attacks or shootings in there. They have relatively strict borders compared to the EU also. Switzerland is also very small, and has easily defendable borders, you might as well point at Japan as well then, and they have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. As such, this is also an derailing of the purpose of this thread, so lets stay away from it.

Edited 6/13/2016 02:05:50

Why the FUCK are we giving GODDAMN ASSAULT RIFLES to people who have been interviewed by the FBI not once, but TWICE about possible extremist/terrorist ties? I don't care about how vehemently you are against gun control. But there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for anyone like that to be able to carry a fucking fully-automatic rifle that can shoot and injure or kill OVER ONE HUNDRED PEOPLE!

The shooter was a security guard and just had a ton of guns. He was previously interviewed by the FBI three times, and they found that there was no reason to conduct further investigations. To say that he should have been denied his constitutional right to buy a gun (especially when He needed one for his career) simply because he had in some point in the past been interviewed by authorities is ludicrous.

Because Republicans (ya know, Trump's party) blocked a law which would have made it illegal for people on watch lists to buy guns.

They apparently want potential terrorists to be able to buy assault rifles 'for self defense'

The watch list has something like a 40% inaccuracy rate, which is just inexcusable. Come up with a better document and then we can talk about banning people from buying guns.

Also, it's pretty irrelevant since the shooter wasn't even on the terrorist watch list.

Yeah, just like banning felons from driving licenses has resulted in no one being able to drive.

Not sure where you got this from, but I have relatives who are felons and have drivers licenses.

The US has the highest gun-related death rate and the most guns per person of any first-world state, clear evidence we have too many guns, yet again.

This doesn't really paint the whole picture. Both beleize and Iran have higher intentional homicide rates than the US, and South Korea, Japan, France, Iceland, Finland, and Belgium have higher suicide rates than either the US's homicide or suicide rate.

Lot of good their lack of guns is doing them huh?

First world country is an actual term? I thought it was just Cold War terms.

Accidental gun deaths, what the fuck? Sources please

time 2 take da guns WHAHHA!!

The first world is a term for countries that are American allied, it has little in relation to any other specification, and therefore useless when arguing about something that doesn't pertain to the country being allied to the US or not.

That said, the Republicans are far worse as a party. It is they who are divisive and attempt to marginalize people.

Ha. That's funny. The Democrats have divided this country just as much as the Republicans, if not more. It's the Democrats who constantly pander to minorities and alienate those who oppose special interest agendas, while at the same time working to keep minority tensions high so they can continue to portray themselves as glorious progressive saviors.

hey constantly tout the second amendment while completely ignoring the first amendment

Citation needed.

Secondly, Democrats don't support the first amendment. If they did, they wouldn't be the ones who push for "Hate speech" laws and suppress religious freedoms.

With that out of the way. On topic: I'm pretty pro-gun, but I have to agree that stricter controls are really needed in this country. There's nothing wrong with sensible background checks, and, I personally don't see why we need the common citizens to have automatic weaponry. Semi-auto rifles, shotguns, and handguns can easily serve all our self-defense/hunting needs.

Semi-auto rifles, shotguns, and handguns can easily serve all our self-defense/hunting needs.

The gun he used was a semi-automatic rifle.

For HDR: http://hdr.undp.org/en Technically speaking, the proper term is very high development, but I'm too used to using the term first world, so I kinda forget to use proper terms, sorry about that.

for Accidental gun deaths: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/, I got my number wrong due to a typo, so sorry. I have edited the value in my statements to be reflective of this error.

Edited 6/13/2016 02:07:09

He was in hiding?

It was? My mistake. Still, I stand by my original point. Obviously we can't ban everything, and no method is going to 100% prevent future attacks, but we can at-least reduce the chances of this repeating.

Exactly how is religious freedom suppressed?

As for guns, there is zero justification for needing to own an assault rifle. Automatic, semi automatic. It doesn't matter. No need to own one. Zero.

Edited 6/13/2016 02:12:14

Also, you need a background check as thorough as one to become a federal agent, to acquire automatic weapons. And last I checked, they put a freeze on getting new machine guns. You could get a Maxim Machine gun though, without any checks.

TL;DR everything, but he did have a bomb and handgun too, and homemade bombs in nightclubs can do just as much damage as am assault rifle. Don't blame the weapon, blame the ideology.

The bombs weren't used though. Garbage excuse.

As for guns, there is zero justification for needing to own an assault rifle. Automatic, semi automatic. It doesn't matter. No need to own one. Zero.

It must be an individual weapon
It must be capable of selective fire
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine
And it should have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards)

AR-15s (the variant used by the shooter at least) aren't select fire and therefore aren't assault rifles.

TL;DR everything, but he did have a bomb and handgun too, and homemade bombs in nightclubs can do just as much damage as am assault rifle. Don't blame the weapon, blame the ideology.
I would blame both the weapon and the ideology just saying. As without one or the other, this doesn't occur.

If he had used bombs, in a crowded place, it would do comparable damage. Look at Boston.

Semantics. No need to own semi automatic weaponry. Period.