I completely understand (but not necessarily agree) why the US started the right to bear arms and everything and I get...

I completely understand (but not necessarily agree) why the US started the right to bear arms and everything and I get that people want guns to stop people using guns but I don't understand why this wasn't stopped if the whole reason for having guns is to counteract it. It just seems that the argument to have guns is to stop this shit but it happens every fucking day in America. Granted, not on this scale but it happens.
I'm a Britfag I don't agree with banning guns as I have a couple myself but I do agree with restrictions and regulations like ours which gun crime statistics will supports.
My question is; If Americans need guns to stop shootings, then why don't you ever prevent them and continue to let people buy military grade weapons?

Other urls found in this thread:

washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
youtube.com/watch?v=vgeoWlqM4i8
twitter.com/AnonBabble

rarely is there ever an armed citizen present in a position to stop the crime. Its that simple. sometimes it happens but it is usually something like a covenience store robbery.

>bear arms

homeschooled.

The reason your subway and Double Decker buses got bombed is because guns weren't readily available.

terrorists find weapons, gun control doesnt stop that.

and not reported on when stopped

But the whole point is that in the USA guns ARE readily available. Yet you constantly have these types of incidents. UK had these two cases in the past years, US has uncountable more cases.

It really shouldn't be that hard to grasp the point he is making.

>I don't understand why this wasn't stopped if the whole reason for having guns is to counteract it.
In this case, because it's a night club... alcohol and guns don't mix.

> If Americans need guns to stop shootings, then why don't you ever prevent them and continue to let people buy military grade weapons?
You mean "military style" I assume, because there's nothing military grade about most cheapo AR-15s. And your logic doesn't follow that somehow banning a certain aesthetic of gun will stop shootings.

>And your logic doesn't follow that somehow banning a certain aesthetic of gun will stop shootings.
It makes a difference in the scale though. If someone only has a handgun, how many people will he be able to kill before a law abiding citizen can take him out? Rifles can do more damage at a faster pace.

>It really shouldn't be that hard to grasp the point he is making.

How ironic, you missed the other guys point too.

If the US didnt have guns, the gay bar would have been blown up like the UK subway was.

Having armed citizens doesn't stop people from detonating bombs, does it?

There are a substantial number of crimes that are prevented with guns, but they very rarely make national headlines. The only exception to that is if it's a 10 year old kid that fended off a home intruder. I doubt even that would make international headlines. To make international headlines you need a high body count.

Here are some examples. There are lots if you search google.

washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

"To put is still more plainly: the desire for security and the feeling of insecurity are the same thing. To hold your breath is to lose your breath. A society based on the quest for security is nothing but a breath-retention contest in which everyone is as taut as a drum and as purple as a beet."

youtube.com/watch?v=vgeoWlqM4i8

You cannot concealed carry a gun in bars in Florida. All the people in the bar were following the law, except for the gunman.

>I don't understand why this wasn't stopped if the whole reason for having guns is to counteract it.

Most mass shootings take place in gun free zones, like schools or places where they serve alcohol (like this gay club.)

the one in Tx got stopped didnt even make it in the door only one person got shot in the leg

>Having armed citizens doesn't stop people from detonating bombs, does it?
Your Boston Marathon showed that very well, yes. But this wasn't about bombs, it was about shootings. If your point is guns prevent bombs, then why did you get bombed like in Boston as well? People always claim "there need to be more guns to prevent shootings" and that's the whole point of this thread, to ask WHY apparently those shootings never get stopped despite people having guns.

>DOCTOR I HAZ LUNG CANCER
>HERE HAVE COUGH SYRUP

Why are you trying to separate shootings from terrorist acts?

That doesn't make sense. Every bar has armed guards. In fact every gun free zone has at least some armed personal.

> names 10 over the last two decades
They sure put a dent in the number of mass shootings

I have to assume that even though many people own a gun, and keep it with the intention of self defense, they never truly understand what it is to use it in a dangerous situation.
These people that commit these acts of terrorism, I believe are acting in desperation. I don't know the circumstances of the man who killed all those people.
But the sad truth is that he probably wasn't any different than any other person with a strong ideology. There were probably circumstances that sent him on his unfortunate path that we will never understand.

The only thing I'm trying here is to talk about the topic in the OP, it's kind of annoying when people try to derail the discussion in a different direction you know.

>Every bar has armed guards.

You literally have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

guns are not allowed in bars its a law so the guards dont have guns

You have some really shitty bars then if your bouncers aren't armed. I mean how retarded do you have to be in a country full of armed people to have your security personal not be armed lol

The United Kingdom is a much smaller, much more manageable chunk of rock. In addition, a common denominator in all of these recent attacks in the United States is that they were in "gun-free zones", portions of the country deliberately set aside for the sole purpose of creating victims.

You are asking the wrong question OP.

Why should the government, the military, and the police be allowed guns, but ordinary citizens (who pay for the government, the military and the police) not be allowed guns?

The United States was founded on individual freedom. It is impossible to have individual freedom when certain individuals in your society are legally allowed something that you are not.

It is that simple.
We the people of the Unites States of America

>In fact every gun free zone has at least some armed personal.

What? My town of 6,000 people didn't have a single cop, let alone my high school of 400.

One day, many years from now, when you turn twenty one and go to your first bar, you will notice that bouncers (if the place even has one) are never armed.

>You are asking the wrong question OP.
A question you don't like the answer too / can't answer is a wrong question, got it. OP even said he's not against guns but you still make him out to be one. That's so dumb.

Dude I'm not from the US, we don't have to wait till 21 here. Plus, I'm far past 21. And every place I ever went to had armed guards.

Boston was a separate test, to see how we react to IEDs. Its been proven that firearms, while not necessarily the best in the means of efficient kill, has a greater terror effect on the United States. Everyone agrees that bombs are bad. Guns keep us arguing and divided.

The US didn't start the Right to bear arms... Our Constitution does not "grant" the Right... It observes that all men are born with the Right to bear arms. Do you see the difference? It is a big difference. I don't have 2nd amendment Rights "because" of the Constitution, the Constitution is merely a framework that recognizes my Rights.

Now, if you read declaration of Independance, it says very clearly that I am obligated to resist and overthrow any Government which attempts to take my Rights from me. This is part of a citizen's function in society, it is a responsibility. There will always be forces seeking to move towards tyranny, no matter what. We must he prepared, and capable, of pushing back.

I will die before I surrender my Right to keep and bear arms. My wife, my children, my parents, we will all die before we are made helpless by our Government. Slavery exists the instant you no longer have a choice - and once our population is disarmed, we no longer have a choice about anything. The Government could do anything at that point.

Keep in mind, that having a gun at the night club was illegal - which is why the shooter went there. He wanted helpless people to prey upon. Everyone at the club was following the law, and that is why they are dead.

Where are you from?

If you're looking for a rational argument from these people you're in the wrong place, the morons who are so gun pro "dunt take ma gunz" retards are often mentally unstable or are so stupid they thing the government will take their guns and impose marshal law and overlord the people. i dont think anyone can rationally argue those points unless they think the U.S. is about to be invaded on a large scale by ISIS and thats insane.Dont even try matey anyone on that side is mentally retarded and should kill themselves with their AR15s.

Mass shootings and terrorism are the prices we pay for a free and open society. Every solution put forward has been the old "lets sacrifice individual rights for the illusion of safety" trope we have heard now for years. I will give my AR-15 when the police and military give up theirs.

Because all these shootings happen in gun free zones. That's why there is no one with a gun to stop them.

Good luck overthrowing the biggest military in the world that has access to nukes lol

Because in gun free zones nobody is allowed a firearm. Leaves the people there sitting ducks.

the Arab world has not had much trouble resisting the mighty american military. Asymmetrical warfare has always been around. It ain't going away any time soon.

Well no I just mean here we can have shotguns with 3 round max limits for a section 2 licence so you can just fire off round after round into a crowd. You need to be part of a gun club for 6 months before you can apply to get a licence to allow for semi auto AR15s, Ak 47s, m16s etc/handguns etc which are all recalibered to .22LR. There is literally no need for a fully auto weapon other than to take out multiple victims as quickly as possible.
We're allowed .300 and win mag snipers etc, fuck, we're even allowed .50cals if we want (fuck knows why you'd need one for hunting deer) but we just don't get shootings like you lot do.
YOU DO NOT NEED FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS

End of

To directly answer OP's question:

1. There are laws in America which prevent open carry, making it nearly impossible to even carry a gun outside of your home in most states. (There are over 270 million guns in America, and the mass majority of Americans follow the rules because they are not criminals.)

2. Coupled with liberals and the left owning the media, and a broken criminal justice system, the fear of being thrown in jail for shooting someone (even if you shoot that person for a completely legitimate reason such as self defense) is a huge deterrent for people to actually use their weapons outside of a home invasion.

3. A majority of these mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, which criminals obviously don't care about, because they are criminals.

Those are just a few of the main reasons why it is very difficult to stop these shootings. Happy?

Nope.

Sandy Hook School don't have an armed guard.
Most Bars don't have armed guards.

A gun free zone sight will never stop a shooting, an armed citizen may not stop a shooting, one cop per thousand residents (my town fifteen thousand people fifteen cops, total not just on duty) may not stop a shooting,

I want the chance to live, to protect myself from harm and people who would infringe on my liberties.
I carry, my daughters carry, I would rather hire a lawyer than pay for a funeral.

Dear Britfag. Our mainstream media is heavily biased, and always has an agenda. Please don't buy into it.

Yours Truly,
Amerifag

Who are you to decide what is and whats not a military assault weapon? Stay mad europoor.

Its illegal to carry a gun and drink booze or go to a bar with a gun
Its illegal to have guns at schools
Many private businesses (movie theaters) ban people from carrying guns on them while on the premise
Most mass shootings are done with handguns or shotguns
It is called a Armalite rifle not a assualt rifle
Criminals pick places where there is less resistance and lots of people
Criminals dont care about laws
Most people are too afraid to protect themselves because the law can come back and hurt the gun owner You make a wrong move and basically your in jail too

OP, This:

Guns did stop this. If the information I heard was correct, the police killed the shooter. And guns didn't stop it before it happened because it was in a GAY BAR. I don't know a single gay person who has a concealed carry permit. So your argument is false

no one needs to speak in all caps yet here you are.

Gun free zones for "safety"

As if American schools have to have police normally. Kek

Good lucking thinking the military is going to side with a bunch of liberal hippie, dick sucking faggots. Do you honestly think the Military/Cops/Vets are going to do your bidding? They are the most conservative types in this country.

And I don't have to "overthrow" anything Mr. Reading Comprehension. I just have to resist. Oh nevermind, just go back to sucking dick.

I would like to know, just out of curiosity, do you think you are truly capable of taking a life?
In a moment of need, do you think you would be able to snuff out the very individual spark of a stranger?
Using any weapon to end a life is only invitation for more violence. Guns are not the answer.

Because people will find guns no matter what you do. Illegal or not. They also made meth illegal and yet there is an epidemic of meth heads.

tell that to all of Britain during world war one an two.

The problem with most of these places the mass shootings happen is not areas people normally conceal or open carry firearms for self defense. I doubt anyone at that club brought a gun with them, because they're just there to have a good time. The aurora theater shooting is pretty much the same thing, not many people bring guns into a movie theater. IMO guns are mostly good for self defense against home invasion, but I carry a .40 in my truck in case I come across a rattle snake in a field

True

Not true, handguns are the go to weapon in cqb, Easier to bring to bear on target, larger rounds, more stopping power

I ain't even mad

Wars that never should have happened.
Violence only breeds more violence, it's so simple.

stay mad europoor

Criminals do not obey gun laws

Europeans are strange. Of course! Any man should be willing to defend his life with deadly force! How can you be the descendant of Europeans, when Europeans fought each other for hundred and thousands of years - and... I just don't fucking get it.

Maybe that is why you guys are taking it up the ass from the Muslims. You are gong to be on the end of a leash in a few decades saying "I would never let my teeth scrap my Master's cock, that would be a racist attack!"

so much truth...

There'd be more meth heads if meth were legal.

What you guys don't get is that by default any deterrent will lower the amount of people that do something. If you make getting guns harder, sure some people will still find ways to get them, but the number will go down.

Well go preach that to the entire natural world, which all runs on violence.

Any person that says violence solves nothing was not using enough of it.

the whole philosophy behind the 2nd amendment is to prevent the government from disarming civilians, so civilians can't be taken over by force by the government.

>Violence only breeds more violence, it's so simple.
But that's wrong you fucking idiot. Using violence makes it more likely for me to pass on my seed, and you to no pass on shit. It is called EVOLUTION you dumb fuck.

So for instance if you were in a gas station, and a person comes in and demands money, with a gun and doesnt point it directly at you, and you pull your gun and shoot him congratulations you commited a crime and the criminal can now sue you, the person directly has to threaten your way of life before your legally allowed to take action and remove the threat

I'm UK you fuck

Deterrents lower the odds of shit happening. Yes, shit will still happen, but if you make it harder it will happen less by default.

You guys are actually retarded.

I am not European. I am a pacifist American.
It's easy to say you could, but I feel like taking a life would be haunting. Whether you want it or not, the blood of that person would be on your hands, and their dying moments would stay in your mind till you went in the ground.
Why spend so much time creating things that kill when we could invest in things that incapacitate?
Muslims are what they are. There's a handful of bad, with a majority being like any other citizen.
We are all human, religious affiliation means little to me.

stay mad europoor

Law abiding citizens wouldn't get any guns, but criminals would still find a way.

As humans we constantly place ourselves above other animals who operate more on instinct, but when it comes to violence you'd rather compare yourself to a territorial bear?

>now a YLYL thread

Its cool to feel that way but if someone is trying to kill you are you gonna condense that cute little hippy speech into something a little shorter?

Please if you pulled a tazer and the threat pulled a gun who do you think is gonna win

This

even people that can legally carry a concealed weapon are not allowed to take it into places that make over 51% of their profit from alcohol, i.e. this club

If somebody is trying to kill me I'm going to do my best to incapacitate them.
But I will never aim to kill someone, that is not something that I'm capable of.

ban assault taser's now! no logical reason for them in the first place!

Shooters that are stopped by an armed civilian are usually stopped before it becomes a mass shooting.

Mass shootings tend to happen in gun-free areas.

Yes, but some of those first time criminals just won't do it once they can't get a gun. Some will still find a way, but thinking that nothing will change once you set up a deterrent makes no logical sense.

The person with a gun. I would very surely die.
I don't want to die, but I'm not going to carry an object very easily capable of taking a life, because that in itself goes against my lifestyle.

yep that has never worked for any human in human history. Nice bait btw.

>implying that the right to bear arms was implemented so citizens can fight crime
The media is having a field day with you fucks.
It was originally implemented so that we the people could defend against the government if it ever got too fucked up again.
>It's at least 100x more fucked than before and no one cares. As long as 53 fags died, let's dump our guns in the ocean and call it a day.

This.

The idea of only having certain law enforcing agents have legal access to firearms is a very interesting idea. I would love to see how that works out in other countries. If you Britfags want to try having a country that uses that law, please go right ahead. In the U.S., the law around this is quite clear. Our country exists so that we can experience what it's like living in an environment where carrying weapons is recognized as a right. The idea is, when everyone's ready, and they don't feel a need to, they just will choose not to carry them. But it has to be of their own decision, and they have to have the ability to go get some if the need ever arises.

If this style of living is not appealing to a U.S. Citizen, they are free to go elsewhere. What they are not free to do is infringe on our right to bear arms. And if they try to, then they'll have to go through god knows how many armed citizens in order to do so. That's why tyranny so often takes the form of cameras and theatrics in our country. Any wannabe tyrant already knows from history that they're sure as shit not going to win a gun fight. So, if they want to practice a lifestyle of corruption, they have to use trickery, and non-violent methods instead. They would literally have to fight a war of passive-aggression.

This is the stupidest thing i've ever read.

I hope your wife, children and parents get killed by some retard with a gun. Because of "muh rights" - fucking retard.

We arent talking about terrorists though, but rather normal civilians who crack, and have access to lethal weapons when they do crack.

You are all fucking retarded.

The second ammendment is to protect and overthrow tyrannical governments.

>europoor
Why do you use such a lame expression? All the 5 countries with a higher median per-capita income than the US are European.

you have every right to do so. You have no right to take weapons away from the non-retards that live in the real world.

It's cool that you know every single violent encounter in human history.
Gosh you're just a brilliant thing, aren't you?
If I have the choice between stabbing somebody in the heart and killing them, or stabbing them in the leg and stopping their attack, I will very clearly pick the latter.

Bas assualt plungers first no reason for them

bet you'd rather pick your bum m8

Spoken like a real progressive there. Way to show the world tolerance and compassion.

I don't want to take your weapons away.
It's a personal decision to not have one, but I want to know that gun owners understand the gravity and responsibility of the object that they own.

stay mad europoor