Lol I guess Ben's notes won't help if you're 17 unless you're in a special ed program or something

The Canadian school system is entirely a special ed program. In other words, our so-called education is worthless in the real world.

If that comforts you, sure.

My opinions on gun control change completely once I step outside of the US.

I'm not sure about Canada, but guns have been in US arms since its birth; it was born out of guns, as well. Guns expanded our country, kept it from falling apart, gave protection in the badlands and less governed places, and gave food for our families.

Guns are so ingrained in US culture and society that it would be a terrible idea to limit them much at all. They are everywhere, and everyone has access to them if they want one enough. Government has them, good, law abiding citizens have them, and bad naughty criminals have them. To limit them too far would only disservice the law abiding citizens, as the government, and the bad naughty criminals would still have access to them in full.

It's not like that in other countries, though. And in a lot of those countries, there is no issue on this, because there are not all too many guns in circulation, legal or illegal.

On a side note I think gun freaks get a bad rap. The group who seem to praise guns more than Jesus are among the least likely to commit a crime with guns, but they are always the targets of scrutiny by those who want Europe-like gun control.

the real problem with not restricting guns isnt homicides, statistics show that homicide rates dont fall much (or at all) in many countrys after gun control is instituted. the real problem with it are suicides and accidents. If people are feeling depressed the easiest way to kill yourself is a gun, if those people dont have a gun, they might fail to kill themselves, this reduces the suicide rate. And it is incredibly difficult to aciddentaly kill someone, unless you have a gun.

These aren't particularly great responses, but I found a Quora question (https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Americans-need-to-own-guns-Even-when-the-law-enforcement-agencies-are-very-efficient) that I think might help the non-Americans here understand the American perspective on gun rights. If you grow up in a society other than the United States of America, you might not understand this country's values and viewpoints perfectly so there's some stuff that people from other countries miss when they try to figure out what rights we should and shouldn't get.

Gun rights are fundamentally about keeping our country's democratic systems in balance- by giving the people/individuals some mechanisms to defend themselves against abuse and the ability to defend themselves in basic situations without having to become dependent on the government. At its core, our Constitution is about a carefully-crafted balance between lots of competing interests (the federal government, state governments, local governments, people, political coalitions, corporate interests, industries, foreign powers, etc.) built to preserve the rights of the American people and to maintain a functional but fundamentally rights-driven and liberal (in the classical sense- i.e., maintaining liberty) government. There are some places where you have a trade-off between a government that's able to provide a high quality-of-life and a government that's able to maintain a basic level of freedom for a long period of time- and that trade-off factored greatly into the crafting of America's government.

Now, obviously, that Constitution is not a be-all-end-all here since even the people who wrote it disagreed vehemently on what it meant and would've been divided on the Second Amendment too. But a lot of people's assumptions about guns- like, "Why do you need them in the first place?"- ignore certain ways of thinking that you'll find in American culture. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, it's worth trying to understand what these people think and why they think it.

Edited 1/17/2017 06:20:58

It's a pretty similar use to what the military is supposed to be used for in Turkey, to keep the government in check. Except in Turkey it failed recently and in the US has been used sparingly.

.

Edited 1/17/2017 09:09:19

Keep criminals and insane ppl from having guns. Let everyone else have anything they want. No restrictions.

he real problem with not restricting guns isnt homicides, statistics show that homicide rates dont fall much (or at all) in many countrys after gun control is instituted. the real problem with it are suicides and accidents. If people are feeling depressed the easiest way to kill yourself is a gun, if those people dont have a gun, they might fail to kill themselves, this reduces the suicide rate. And it is incredibly difficult to aciddentaly kill someone, unless you have a gun.

I'd just like to point out that this theory is pretty much completely bogus. In reality there is little or no correlation between suicide rate and gun ownership, and in many cases there seems to be somewhat of an anticorrelation with places like japan, russia, south korea, and india having among the highest suicide rates:

http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/Global_AS_suicide_rates_bothsexes_2012.png?ua=1

If you grow up in a society other than the United States of America, you might not understand this country's values and viewpoints perfectly so there's some stuff that people from other countries miss when they try to figure out what rights we should and shouldn't get.

American culture is within the Canadian's sphere of knowledge. We are constantly bombarded with your culture everyday.

While I agree that guns are some form of keeping goverments in check, there is also the problem with crazy people abusing the possesion of guns. People should definetely be allowed to own guns, but restrictions should be made.
Restrictions I think are good should include that the officials make sure if possible that only mentally sane people get guns into their hands. Also there should be a legit reason stated when acquiring a license. Reasons could be sport-shooting, collecting, profession-related (bodyguards for example) or in some cases self-defense if needed.

Differences should be made between different kinds of firearms. Austria has an interesting idea there:

Class                      Example                                     License

Class A: Prohibited guns |Full-automatic guns, Pumpguns, Suppressors | Acquired only with very special
                         |                                           | license.
Class B:                 |Handguns, Semi-automatic firearms, lever-  | Acquired with background check.
                         |action                                     |
Class C, D:              |Bolt-action, Singe or double barrel breech-| Can be acquired by anyone above
                         |loaded shotguns, CO²-arms, guns with pre-  | 18 without license. Needs to be 
                         |1871 technology (Blackpowder propelled     | registered, though
                         |projectile without a casing for example.)  |

The idea behind this is not every crazy idiot can acquire a semi-automatic gun legally and go for a shooting rampage. People should be allowed to acquire guns, but only with a reason. Why would you need a full-automatic assault rifle as normal person? You can acquire a handgun or another semi-automatic one and do hunting or sport-shooting. You can collect old firearms and occasionally shoot them. But you should not be allowed to own or carry arms that are meant to be used in war.
Also laws that require people to lock away their guns unloaded are a must-have for me too.

I disagree with that last point. Someone invades my home, I'm not gonna go find a key, unlock a safe, load the gun, and then shoot the intruder. I want the gun within reach. Keep extra guns unloaded and locked away, sure; but you need at least one gun with quick, easy access.

Edited 1/17/2017 17:39:17

And what if your child or another inpexperienced person gets access to your gun and shoots someone or themselves?

@So babies get guns?

That's where good parenting comes in. I grew up the oldest of 6 children, and we never had our guns locked away. They were up high and out of reach. As long as you're a good parent, then you can teach your child(ren) the dangers of a gun by the time they're tall enough to reach the shelf. Call it dangerous if you want, but it worked for me, my five siblings, and everyone else I know. High enough that it's out of reach of the little ones, and by the time they're tall enough, they know better; but I can still reach it if I need to defend my family.
This strategy is very safe, much safer than it sounds. Hell, it's better than locking them away, because if I can't get to my gun, who's to say the intruder doesn't kill us all?
As for "another inpexperienced person", all my family and friends are very experienced. So if an inexperienced person gets ahold of my gun, that means he's a stranger, and thus an intruder. He wouldn't live long enough to get to my guns. Problem solved.

For an interesting and timely sub-topic, you can take one of two sides that was touted during the recent presidential debates.

Statement: If you are on the no-fly list, you should not be able to have a gun.

Reasons for: It seems to make sense. You are on a no-fly list for a reason, you could do harm to the country. If you can't fly because people are afraid your underwear is a bomb, why should you be given a weapon with the ability to kill a lot of people.

Reasons against: The Constitution does not guarantee citizens the right to fly, it does, through today's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms. So, this is a right to the people enumerated by the Constitution. Congress may pass laws that limit your rights, but (you'd have to look it up) there is a shifting scale of the burden of proof that Congress needs to satisfy to pass laws restricting your rights. (e.g., for non-enumerated rights, there only needs to be a sufficiently close nexus between what the government is allowed to do and how they are actually limiting rights; for enumerated rights, the govt needs to have a compelling interest to infringe your rights.) So the analysis here is: Does the govt have a compelling interest to prohibit people from being on the no-fly list from having guns, and what due process is given before placing somebody on the no-fly list. Is it a trial? If so, would that limit the effectiveness of the no-fly list (you can't possibly have a full trial for every person that gets on the no-fly list).

Some people may not worry too much about taking away this right, but substitute a first amendment right ...

NEW STATEMENT: If you are on the no-fly list, you cannot (worship a god, speak freely, etc.)

I was going to write shit then

-
-
-

I had a debate monologue for English class with a similar argument. I did Gun Liberty side:

I bet you are doing a 5-paragraph + counter format guessing your age, so here is what I would do:

1. Introductory Paragraph, mention emotions - Hitler/Stalin.
2. 1st Body Paragraph, talk about not reducing violence.
3. 2nd Body Paragraph, talk about mental health.
4. 3rd Body Paragraph, talk about civil liberties.
5. Counter-Argument, use statistics about nations with lots of guns (Iceland, Switzerland).
6. Closing Paragraph, 1776 :D

Obviously I don't have the time to write your essay, but here is a big big outline that took like 10 minutes:

Btw, I debate enough intelligent people, if you are trying to tell me why I'm wrong, I don't care.

People will resort to other means of violence without guns, and taking away guns does not take away the immense mentality of carelessness violence in America (the country I'm assuming this is about for you). Look at other countries like Switzerland and Iceland, incredibly low gun homicide rates, but still:

United States 112.6 Guns per 100 Capita
3.43 Gun Homicides per 100,000 Capita

Switzerland 45.7 Guns per 100 Capita
0.23 Gun Homicides per 100,000 Capita

Iceland 30.3 Guns per 100 Capita
0.00 Gun Homicides per 100,000 Capita

These three points make it seem as less guns means less murders, but take for example:

Honduras 6.2 Guns per 100 Capita (mostly gangs, hmm)
66.64 Gun Homicides per 100,000 Capita

Obviously there are many outliers here, but overall this should be used as a counter-point, because it proves absolutely nothing, which is the point if it is a counter-argument, that it is worthless. Reducing guns doesn't reduce crime.

Civil Liberties:

If you are trying to argue that people with mental health issues shouldn't get guns, go you. You can go down the slippery slope, first mentally ill, then previous criminals, then dangerous individuals decided by the NSA, then basically everyone. It is hard to go backwards in legislation.

If mentally ill people are disarmed, who decides when they are well? If you become mentally stable, are you still deprived of a gun? Our government is notorious for being inefficient, and it is hard to say that such regulations would even be valid, as criminals by definition do not follow laws and won't follow gun laws.

Gun Control Hall of Fame:

"To conquer a nation, first disarm it's citizens"
- Adolf Hitler, killed 11+ million in the holocaust, 6+ million of which were Jewish.

"We don't let them have ideas, why would we let them have guns?"
- Josef Stalin, killed 20+ million through concentration camps and mass starvation.

For mental health I would just find examples of the mentally ill people who shoot up schools and stuff, I got tired and lazy.

-
-
-

I thank benjamin for answering this shitty argument.

That's where good parenting comes in.

if good parenting comes in everytime everywhere there would be no such thing as "evil". you can't hinge on good parenting for things like this.

Someone invades my home, I'm not gonna go find a key, unlock a safe, load the gun, and then shoot the intruder. I want the gun within reach.

Also unless you've experience with these kinds of crises (no, time at the gun range is not experience), you're going to end up shooting yourself and someone else in the foot and assure yourself as a target that needs to be downed fast very quickly.

Also if you really are worried about something that almost certainly won't happen, then you should get fire extinguishers and wear firejackets and boots (maybe helmets, too) to everywhere and a subscription to a security service before you get a gun.

Where there's a gun, there's fun.

Clint, that's a good point, but I feel iffy on it. I think opening a safe with a passcode would be faster than a key, but loading the gun wouldn't be so bad if the person is trained to do it fast, and I'm pretty sure everyone is required to train before owning a gun. If we had an actual average time of how long it takes someone to access a unloaded and locked up gun, I think we could better understand the situation.

Sure, you and your family knew not to play with the guns, but not everyone is like that.

Edited 1/17/2017 22:12:05