YES IT IS! If you don't own a gun then you can't kill someone (or yourself) with a gun. Guns should be very difficult to get (just like in europe) and not as simple as in USA.
Anyway, I'm not getting into this again. Its pointless. Most Americans are so obsessed with their right to own a gun that they will argue this to death.
You seem to be missing the point. (Purposely?)
Americans have always had guns, but these kind of mass shootings are a relatively new thing. What has changed? (If you'd like, I can give you a few hints.)
And, it isn't the Americans are obsessed with guns. I used to target practice, but currently have no gun(s). Some people do enjoy them as a hobby, while others use them for hunting, etc. But, it isn't the typical gun enthusiast you need to worry about.
Most of the mass shootings were committed by someone who obtained the gun illegally (ie. they bypassed the
existing laws). Second, even if all the guns could be collected from normal citizens, do you realize the police in the USA lose almost 200k guns each year?
Third, as was mentioned before, the 'obsession' has to do with the origins of the country, and the recognition that all the other rights the USA hinge on keeping the government from getting out of control. Think of it more as a
duty than an obsession.
No. First off, neither a police officer or soldier are qualified nor authorized to call someone evil.
Those were my terms, but I think you're trying to play games with me now. If someone intended to kill you or one of your family members, should the police (or military) be able to use those guns to help protect you? Or, should we just let that person kill you or your loved ones (we'll leave whether they are evil or not out of the picture, then)?
Secondly, I don't see a difference between killing a person for their watch or killing a rabbit for their fur.
I do, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my points.
I mean if you are going to go off of founding fathers than only while male landowners should have guns since they are the only ones that qualify as a person.
I don't think that is accurate, but even if it were, what's the point (in the context of this debate)? Do the founding fathers have to be flawless in everything for the Constitutional rights to exist and be protected?
And throwing in "God" to support a claim just makes me sick. God never said "don't kill unless you have to."
I think you were the one who (rightly) brought up that our rights are God-given. But, since I'm a theologian, I suppose that gives me some amount of credibility to toss that in if I should like.
God said we're not to murder. God didn't say we're not to kill.
(BTW, my degree in theology concentrated in the area of apologetics... so if you want to go there, you've been warned
)
If the gun owner organized bullets would stop being sold and chemical warfare would make the streets of Topeka pretty barren.
Yes, that would become an issue in a prolonged conflict. I'm imagining there is plenty of ammo in the hands of gun-owners that it wouldn't be an issue for a while. I'm certainly no expert in such things, but I can't imagine any kind of prolonged civil war between the USA government/military and the citizens. Once it became clear what was going on, would any honorable military people actually protect the gov't idiots? They'd probably join in.[/QUOTE]