The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Proposals on how to tackle the issue of gun related crimein United States

Applesauce

@TKDB

go back and answer the questions I've already asked you, if you continue to try and play this game with me I'll just add you to ignore list.

TKDB

@Applesauce

Can you answer the below questions, yes or no?

Are you maybe trying to make excuses for "guns," in general, by maybe using the Second Amendment, maybe in a sense as its own "gun guard?"

Or are you trying to maybe, rationalize around the gun violence brutalities, waged against, some the public as a whole, by some of the lawful gun owners, and the illegal gun owners, who got their illegal guns, from a illegal gun dealer?  

"go back and answer the questions I've already asked you, if you continue to try and play this game with me I'll just add you to ignore list."

@Applesause

People killing innocent people with a lawful and illegal gun, are apparently, already playing real life games, with other people's lives, IE the public in general, and have been doing it for years now:
(Sexual assaults via a gun,
domestic violence, and abuse with a gun, murder/ suicide with a gun,
drive by shooting crimes with a gun,
mass murderers via a mass shooters gun violence,
car jackings with a gun,
robberies in general with a gun,
gun violence over drug deals, and so on,)
long before your questions ever materialized into existence because you posed them via the internet, to make your arguments with?

Applesauce

@TKDB

you can't answer my questions so I won't answer your, that's how it works, added to ignore list, have a nice life.

TKDB

@Applesauce

You didn't try, you're hiding behind your individual Second Amendment philosophies.

"you can't answer my questions so I won't answer your, that's how it works, added to ignore list, have a nice life."

On ignoring someone Applesauce, basically that's a statement telling other's, that you can't deliver a counter argument, so you'll ignore someone to self justify your own one sided argument? 

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

Are you maybe trying to make excuses for "guns," in general, by maybe using the Second Amendment, maybe in a sense as its own "gun guard?"

Are you maybe trying to make excuses for looking at the big picture surrounding gun-related violence and violence in general as well as looking for information to confirm your own preconceived notions without examining contradictory information?

Or are you trying to maybe, rationalize around the gun violence brutalities, waged against, some the public as a whole, by some of the lawful gun owners, and the illegal gun owners, who got their illegal guns, from a illegal gun dealer?

Or are you may be too emotionally involved with media coverage specifics about the violence that you fail to see the complexities of the issue?

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

I feel sad, and sorry for the way that the public as whole, has been getting treated by the mass shooters crimes, and the lawful, and unlawful gun owners, who have murdered kids, teenagers, parents, and senior citizens, who have been killed in a country, that has manufactured more guns (393 million and growing) than there are living human beings (325 million) in the United States? 

Would you ask the victims of those murdered loved ones, if you casted them in the very light of this very question, that you asked me, from the comforts of your computer, and the internet?

"Or are you may be too emotionally involved with media coverage specifics about the violence that you fail to see the complexities of the issue?"

And while, you're at it, you could ask them, how they view, the below questions, that I addressed to you, and see how they respond to your answers, in their very presence?

Are you maybe trying to make excuses for "guns," in general, by maybe using the Second Amendment, maybe in a sense as its own "gun guard?"

"Are you maybe trying to make excuses for looking at the big picture surrounding gun-related violence and violence in general as well as looking for information to confirm your own preconceived notions without examining contradictory information?"

Or are you trying to maybe, rationalize around the gun violence brutalities, waged against, some the public as a whole, by some of the lawful gun owners, and the illegal gun owners, who got their illegal guns, from a illegal gun dealer?

Go ahead, have a seat in front of them, and ask them, instead of hiding behind the Second Amendment? 

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

I feel sad, and sorry for the way that the public as whole, has been getting treated by the mass shooters crimes, and the lawful, and unlawful gun owners, who have murdered kids, teenagers, parents, and senior citizens, who have been killed in a country, that has manufactured more guns (393 million and growing) than there are living human beings (325 million) in the United States? 

Would you ask the victims of those murdered loved ones, if you casted them in the very light of this very question, that you asked me, from the comforts of your computer, and the internet?

"Or are you may be too emotionally involved with media coverage specifics about the violence that you fail to see the complexities of the issue?"

No, because it is obvious that they are emotionally involved and obviously objective judgments will be clouded. There is a good reason as to why detectives would not be involved in a criminal case if it involved someone close to them as being the victim.  So I am asking you instead with the hope that you might just look at things a bit more objectively and taken into account much more than you have done so far.

Also, the fact that someone favors thinking objectively does not mean that they're unfeeling. Actually, in cases like this, it is far more helpful to think analytically as opposed to emotionally and subjectively.

And while, you're at it, you could ask them, how they view, the below questions, that I addressed to you, and see how they respond to your answers, in their very presence?

Are you maybe trying to make excuses for "guns," in general, by maybe using the Second Amendment, maybe in a sense as its own "gun guard?"

What good would come of this needless question which has no relevance to the overall issue and would most likely just antagonize the victims and their families?

"Are you maybe trying to make excuses for looking at the big picture surrounding gun-related violence and violence in general as well as looking for information to confirm your own preconceived notions without examining contradictory information?"

Or are you trying to maybe, rationalize around the gun violence brutalities, waged against, some the public as a whole, by some of the lawful gun owners, and the illegal gun owners, who got their illegal guns, from a illegal gun dealer?

Go ahead, have a seat in front of them, and ask them, instead of hiding behind the Second Amendment?

Firstly, this would be disrespectful but that's not the point. The point is I am asking you. How about you form your own answers in your own words instead of relying on what you think someone else might say?

Secondly, citing the Second Amendment to me is useless as I am not even a US Citizen.

Thirdly, this is also irrelevant to the overall issue that we're supposed to be addressing.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

So basically some of the pro gun talking heads on the internet, protect their guns, by, in a sense, hiding behind their Second Amendment ideologies, that favor their individual guns, over the victims that were killed by some of the lawful gun owners with their guns, and the thousands of guns, that were used to kill their victims, that were owned by the various criminals, and offenders, who have been killing innocent kids, parents, teenagers, and senior citizens now for years?

So basically from some of the pro gun owner extremist, and some of the pro gun owners, and the illegal gun owning criminals, and offenders, the Second Amendment, and lawfully, and unlawfully owning a gun, or a mass of weapons, is more important to those various gun owners, than the rest of the public is?

That the victims, and their families, mean less to the gun owners, because their guns maybe hold more value, than those families lost loved one's mean to those families? 

@ZeusAres42

Is the above, correctly educating the public, via some of the ideological thinking, of the online pro gun extremists, and some of the lawful gun owners? 

John_C_87

@AmericanFurryBoy ;

It is up to the Federal Government to preserve protect and defend the United States Constitution. This includes the common defense to the general welfare. The Fire-arm license is an civil common defense  made on lethal force that is not provided by a use of military draft or registration. A common defense is a legal posture to be made as a united state. 

TKDB

@John_C_87

So basically some of the pro gun talking heads on the internet, protect their guns, by, in a sense, hiding behind their Second Amendment ideologies, that favor their individual guns, over the victims that were killed by some of the lawful gun owners with their guns, and the thousands of guns, that were used to kill their victims, that were owned by the various criminals, and offenders, who have been killing innocent kids, parents, teenagers, and senior citizens now for years?

So basically from some of the pro gun owner extremist, and some of the pro gun owners, and the illegal gun owning criminals, and offenders, the Second Amendment, and lawfully, and unlawfully owning a gun, or a mass of weapons, is more important to those various gun owners, than the rest of the public is?

That the victims, and their families, mean less to the gun owners, because their guns maybe hold more value, than those families lost loved one's mean to those families? 

@John_C_87

Is the above, correctly educating the public, via some of the ideological thinking, of the online pro gun extremists, and some of the lawful gun owners?  

billbatard

Ban hand guns and semi automatic autolaoders it worked for austrlai and the uk they have much lower over all crime

CYDdharta

billbatard said:

Ban hand guns and semi automatic autolaoders it worked for austrlai and the uk they have much lower over all crime

The ban didn't do ANYTHING for Australia.  Good thing too, since there are more guns in Australia now than there were before the ban.

Applesauce

@CYDdharta

the many threads about the Australian ban have settled that issue, as you know even their OWN law makers couldn't affirmatively say it had any impact, personally wouldn't reply to troll post like that but anyway

"Good thing too, since there are more guns in Australia now than there were before the ban."

I haven't looked into, but that's really interesting and funny as all get out.

George_Horse

"high powered weapons capable of killing numerous amounts of people in seconds. High powered weapons are not needed to for self-defense where a simple hand-gun will suffice."

And what exactly do you mean by "high-powered" weapons? Could you give the names of them?

ZeusAres42

@George_Horse

It was while ago I wrote this now and a lot has changed since then. I think I was referring to the guns that were used in recent mass shootings. One of my points was not that they were to blame for gun violence albeit they were used recently for very violent purposes, but I didn't and still don't see the necessity for them for self-defense when a handgun should suffice.

My other point was something to do with government tyranny which I later thought and still think is a futile debate. I prefer to deal in terms of probabilities; not possibilities. Debating the possibility of tyranny is akin to debating whether or not an asteroid is going to hit the earth tomorrow or not. 

George_Horse

@ZeusAres42 Like I said for my last point, could you give the names of the weapons used in recent mass shootings?

ZeusAres42

@George_Horse

No, I can't. And what is the relevance in that anyway?

George_Horse

ZeusAres42 said:

@George_Horse

No, I can't. And what is the relevance in that anyway?

Well you say "high-powered weapons" yet you don't clearly name them. How are people supposed to know what type of firearms are "high-powered" without knowing their names? 

ZeusAres42

@George_Horse

Oh right, so you want me to dig up the name of every single make and model of every firearm ever used in mass shootings to make it more clearer for people to understand what I mean?

George_Horse

@ZeusAres42 No, the names of the firearms used in RECENT mass shootings (Late 2018 - Early 2019)

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42 ;
It was while ago I wrote this now and a lot has changed since then. I think I was referring to the guns that were used in recent mass shootings. One of my points was not that they were to blame for gun violence albeit they were used recently for very violent purposes, but I didn't and still don't see the necessity for them for self-defense when a handgun should suffice.

That is because the United State Constitutional which is amended by additions to basic principle as right to common defense to the general welfare are not for in whole truth self-defense. The burden of lethal force is shared equally between all men, citizens of an independent land to protect men who had served in battles of independence form the Royal Monarchies, Parliament, and Judicial laws of England, While also as united state addressing lethal force against military services men assigned to the colonies from the King of England....

A self-evident truth is created by creator. All men are created equal this includes Minutemen, enlisted militia, farmers, clerks and in-keeps.

John_C_87

It is not an excuse it is a justification used by some to not share an equal burden in common defense to the use of lethal force. There are many civil lawsuits which had been based on a basic principle of a transfer of burdens of true independence. Moving the burden of lethal force fully to the Congressional Armed Services and judicial separation.

The Draft of the Military can be proven to be unconstitutional. We cannot force a person to apply lethal force when necessary to secure a liberty for other people. This had a risk in the past and has risk now. This status does not interrupt the United State in Constitution which allows a non-military personnel congressional armed or other to by ownership of gun share equal a burden of lethal force with enlisted soldiers whom had to apply lethal force in preservation of the liberty of United State Constitution.

I may not have explained that in a basic way easy enough to understand. With liberty and greater expression of basic principle, I will try again.  It sets a condition where a person who shoots someone in public and is not stopped, or shot by a witness to the shooting, as witness then share equally in the burden of the shooting.

The idea was acted out in the old westerns when a person who was forced to shoot in a duel would surrender the weapon and go before an appointed judge to make ruling on the actions of lethal force. This was so that other around them would not themselves be place in criminal danger. Then basic principle also played out often in the altercations involving a woman's honor in England and many parts of Europe.

George_Horse

ZeusAres42 said:

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention in my most recent post before this one the following:

However, if you makes you feel better to flag or call the post a fallacy then by all means do so. But, just remember that facts, reason, and logic do not care about your feelings or your deeply ingrained political ideologies for that matter as well as your deeply entrenched philosophical beliefs. My alternative suggestion would be that you see a Shrink to help you deal with your feelings.

Top kek. 

Applesauce

@George_Horse

they can't even define what's considered "high powered" are there low powered guns?  silly terms meant to be open ended with no real definitions so they can be used/twisted to meet their agenda.  Then there's the fallacy of placing the burden by saying why do you need x, irrelevant, no where in the constitution or b.o.r. is a needs test.  Now consider the 1a, 4a just to name a few which are applied to new technology the founders couldn't have dreamed of, internet, tv etc.  so to say they only meant it for those current times is another fallacy and fail argument.
these arguments are emotionally based which isn't sufficient to restrict inalienable rights.

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@John_C_87

So basically some of the pro gun talking heads on the internet, protect their guns, by, in a sense, hiding behind their Second Amendment ideologies, that favor their individual guns, over the victims that were killed by some of the lawful gun owners with their guns, and the thousands of guns, that were used to kill their victims, that were owned by the various criminals, and offenders, who have been killing innocent kids, parents, teenagers, and senior citizens now for years?

So basically from some of the pro gun owner extremist, and some of the pro gun owners, and the illegal gun owning criminals, and offenders, the Second Amendment, and lawfully, and unlawfully owning a gun, or a mass of weapons, is more important to those various gun owners, than the rest of the public is?

That the victims, and their families, mean less to the gun owners, because their guns maybe hold more value, than those families lost loved one's mean to those families? 

@John_C_87

Is the above, correctly educating the public, via some of the ideological thinking, of the online pro gun extremists, and some of the lawful gun owners?  

Are they hiding behind the 2nd Amendment made on the United state of constitution under common defense or, is the 2nd Amendment applied to the gun owner by accusation of a crime publicly, to which their are now associated as a participant to a crime as untied state? In the construction of justice is United state in whole truth being used to explain in basic principle clearly the accusation of crime applied. committed by another? Lets for a moment presume the goal of education is whole truth, and not limited truth. Had the victim been armed capable of holding a burden of equality in application of lethal force, meaning they would not forever be dependent on someone for this service, would the outcome have changed? It is with sorrow and understanding of hardship truth is sometimes seen basically as a whole truth. 

Can I also state for a whole truth a P.O.W. when captured and held prisoner are they not also relieved of the burden of United States Constitutional common defense to the general welfare, as united state?

The basic principle of state of the union is truth and whole truth are both a form of education.

John_C_87

@George_Horse @Applesauce ;

The basic principle behind the argument you two have, is on common defense, a state of the union for one form of gun is not a united state with other guns of that same type. This is not truth.  What is never legislated clearly is those who have been proven by United States Constitutional separation, under a name of justice, can be then united to be no longer fit for a burned of equality, set around the application of lethal force, this falls under the jurisdiction of some if not all gun law as a united state.

People are not children in school, taking away all toy’s is simply not appropriate in this matter. In whole truth taking away a toy is stealing in basic principle. Even when returned to the person the toy was taken from, in whole truth. The principle of punishment in a educational institution is not a guideline for punishment in a constitutional setting. Children are exposed to dangers of flood, fire, and animal. This includes people

, floatation, Fire, Ballistic shield devices are relevant to areas and risk.

I consider this a realistic state of the union.  

TKDB

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Baton_Rouge_police_officers

"2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers

On July 17, 2016, Gavin Eugene Long shot six police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in the wake of the shooting of Alton Sterling. Three died and three were hospitalized, one critically; of the officers who died, two were members of the Baton Rouge Police Department, while the third worked for the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office.[3] Long, who associated himself with organizations linked to black separatismand the sovereign citizen movement,[4] was shot and killed by a SWAT officer during a shootout with police at the scene. Police arrested and questioned two other suspects, but Long was confirmed to be the only person involved in the shooting."

2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers
Location	Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States
Coordinates	30.4338°N 91.0817°W
Date	July 17, 2016  8:42 a.m. – c. 8:48 a.m. (CDT)
Target	Police officers at Baton Rouge
Attack type	Mass shooting, shootout
Weapons	5.56 IWI Tavor SAR rifle 9mm Springfield XDsemi-automatic pistol
Deaths	4 (including the perpetrator)
Non-fatal injuries	3
Perpetrator	Gavin Eugene Long
Motive	Recent police shootings of African Americans[a]
Litigation	Federal lawsuit against Black Lives Matter by Tullier dismissed

TKDB

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4927806/Sacramento-police-release-video-deadly-shootout.html

"Shocking dash cam footage reveals the moment cops shoot dead a man suspected of killing his girlfriend and her 17-year-old daughter as he opened fire on officers"

"Sacramento police released graphic video of a fatal shootout that killed a double-homicide suspect and wounded two officers. 

Videos from police body cameras and patrol car dashboards show Eric Arnold, 41, of Sacramento being killed in a hail of gunfire after he came out shooting when police stopped his pick-up truck on September 7.

Arnold was wanted for killing his 45-year-old girlfriend and her 17-year-old daughter on September 1.

An officer spotted his black pick-up truck and began following it, finally pulling Arnold over on a small residential street in south Sacramento, California. 

At least two other patrol cars rolled in as back up."

 

ZeusAres42

@Applesauce

they can't even define what's considered "high powered" are there low powered guns?  silly terms meant to be open ended with no real definitions so they can be used/twisted to meet their agenda.

Nothing to do with agendas; just a generic statement referencing mass shootings in general over the years.  At least that's how I am using it anyway.  Also, it does not take a genius to work out what one means by "high powered" weapons and referencing mass shootings. This is also the "play on words" fallacy.

Then there's the fallacy of placing the burden by saying why do you need x, irrelevant, no where in the constitution or b.o.r. is a needs test. 

I myself did not reference anything about the constitution in regard to why you need x. I was referencing self-defense being that a simple handgun is very apt for the job without the need for anything more lethal.

Now consider the 1a, 4a just to name a few which are applied to new technology the founders couldn't have dreamed of, internet, tv etc.  so to say they only meant it for those current times is another fallacy and fail argument.
these arguments are emotionally based which isn't sufficient to restrict inalienable rights.

I am not entirely sure if everything you say here is factually correct. I do know however that these arguments are most definitely not the "appeal to emotion fallacy" although they could still technically be fallacious. But I can see possible fallacies appearing both ways though.  For example, if someone assumes that all things that were valid centuries ago must mean they are no longer valid then they are being fallacious. By the same token if someone assumes just because something was valid centuries ago it must mean it's still valid today they too are also guilty of fallacious reasoning. 

Having said all this, however, based on the balance of probability and what history tells us is that it is very unlikely that founding fathers could have envisioned what life would be like two centuries later unless of course, they could somehow magically read the future. This isn't an argument by the way; this is just a statement that epitomizes speculation based on probabilities and what we know about history. 

Applesauce

@ZeusAres42

"Also, it does not take a genius to work out what one means by "high powered" weapons and referencing mass shootings."

oh?  so define it then and give the criteria for the definition and how and why it's applicable and what the standard it's being applied to, what is the standard powered gun which all others are judged.

"I am not entirely sure if everything you say here is factually correct."

seriously?  you think the founding fathers had any notion about the internet, porn, video, digital media etc when they wrote the 1a?  Because the 1a is applied all those modern things and will continue to be.  The inconsistency comes from the statements that the founding fathers didn't mean the 2a to apply to modern weapons.  I'm not saying you have done that which is why I didn't direct it at you.  I don't recall if it was here or on another similar site but I took the time to review the "mass" murders from a biased liberal source and calculated the number of wounded vs killed.  Guess what, the shootings with handguns had a higher % of people killed vs the ones with "assault rifles".  But don't take my word for it look at the Vegas shooting, see how many were wounded and how many killed and come give us that % since if you do it some will consider it more credible.  I don't recall if I could find an estimate as to how many shots were actually fired, but for some of them I did and again the % of that actually hit a target was very low. (just assault rifles don't know about handguns)  If I can find where I did all that math I'll post it.

ZeusAres42

@Applesauce

seriously?  you think the founding fathers had any notion about the internet, porn, video, digital media etc when they wrote the 1a? 

I never said that in my previous post or even implied it.

I don't recall if it was here or on another similar site but I took the time to review the "mass" murders from a biased liberal source and calculated the number of wounded vs killed.  Guess what, the shootings with handguns had a higher % of people killed vs the ones with "assault rifles".

This actually proves my point about handguns being sufficient enough for self-defense; no need for "assault rifles" when handguns are perfectly capable for the job.  

As for the other things you said I don't really share much of an opinion on them either way.

Applesauce

@ZeusAres42

there's no "needs" test in the constitution or bill of rights.

"This actually proves my point about handguns being sufficient enough for self-defense; no need for "assault rifles" when handguns are perfectly capable for the job."

your point aka opinion is just that which I would defend your right to have.
what firearm an individual thinks is sufficient for themselves is subjective and individualistic, claiming to know what's best for everyone and forcing that opinion is totalitarian isn't it?

ZeusAres42

@Applesauce

Fair enough.

John_C_87

Applesauce said:

@ZeusAres42

there's no "needs" test in the constitution or bill of rights.

"This actually proves my point about handguns being sufficient enough for self-defense; no need for "assault rifles" when handguns are perfectly capable for the job."

your point aka opinion is just that which I would defend your right to have.
what firearm an individual thinks is sufficient for themselves is subjective and individualistic, claiming to know what's best for everyone and forcing that opinion is totalitarian isn't it?

The test of truth is made on lethal force not self-defense, a basic restriction is made by law stating it is wrong in principle to hire some person to kill on your behalf this includes police officers and soldiers. As a property owner/ gun owner a person shares the burden of lethal force equally with the United State of governing. A legal precedent can be a way in which a law is giving the same protection to the most people.

TKDB

https://www-kiro7-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.kiro7.com/amp/news/local/developing-seattle-police-respond-to-possible-shooting/948345719?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFCAGgAQI=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/developing-seattle-police-respond-to-possible-shooting/948345719 

Local

"1 killed, 2 injured after shooting in Seattle's Central District"

"One person was killed and two people were injured in a shooting in Seattle's Central District neighborhood Friday afternoon, police said. 

Shortly after 3 p.m., investigators said one suspect shot at a group of people in the 2100 block of East Union Street.

Police said the victims drove to Swedish Hospital."

"One died, and two others were in satisfactory condition at Harborview Medical Center.

Police did not immediately release a suspect description. 

Anyone with information about the shooting is asked to call 206-233-5000.

Investigators said the gang unit was doing an ongoing emphasis patrol in that neighborhood and other neighborhoods affected by gun violence.

See time-stamped updates below.  

4:52 p.m.: Police gave a briefing and said they did not have a suspect description to release.

Three victims -- the man in his 20s, the man in his 40s and a third victim who died -- were shot shortly after 3 p.m. They were driven in a car with two other people to Swedish's Cherry Hill campus. 

The two people who survived were taken to Harborview Medical Center, where they were in satisfactory condition."

These types shootings, are a daily occurrence. 

But leave the Second Amendment, unamended, it's 18th century language, getting abused, by the 21 century actions, of some of the lawful, and the unlawful gun owners? 

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

In a state of the union address please describe in basic principle how the 2nd amendment changes the united-state in the Constitution of America?

TKDB

@John_C_87

Are you a gun owner John?

Or do you maybe know any gun owners, or any pro gun extremists? 

"In a state of the union address please describe in basic principle how the 2nd amendment changes the united-state in the Constitution of America?"

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@John_C_87

Are you a gun owner John?

I will presume you would like an hosted answer in basic principle.

Worse, I am the register weapon.

Zombieguy1987

ZeusAres42 said:

The fact is that there is crime surrounding both handguns and high powered guns and there does need to be something done to reduce the number of casualties that occur from gun-related crime each year. Now, while statistically more people in the US are killed every year by hand-guns this still does not justify the need to own much more high powered weapons capable of killing numerous amounts of people in seconds. High powered weapons are not needed to for self-defense where a simple hand-gun will suffice. Further, nor will either hand-guns or high powered guns be enough to do anything in the extremely improbable event of Government Tyranny. So, based on this high powered guns are not needed and can be rightly so, extinguished. So, this is one of the first steps to reducing casualties and/or deaths that occur as a result of high powered weapons; to make them inaccessible.

Next, we still have the issue of hand-gun related casualties and deaths. I have a few suggestions in regards to this and they are as follows:

1. Calibrate stricter laws so that the guns do not fall into the hands of bad or irresponsible people. You would do this by ensuring that gun owners and potential gun owners have regular background checks as well as psychological checks. These checks would take place every five years minimum.
   
2. Ensure that everyone that wants to own a gun has training in how to actually use it, and take a gun safety course.
3. Put in place a stricter selection process for all Police Officers. As we have seen in past times there are Police Officers that are trigger-happy and tend to rely more on their guns than their actual brains. These courses of action would entail psychological tests, including intelligence testing. 
   
4. Fine-tune laws/policies that would more robustly tackle the issues of drugs and gangs as a lot of gun crime also revolves around these factors.  

Now, what are your views?

I can ceritanly tell you, gun control doesn't work, and ironically countries/cities/states/whatever, that have composaey gun ownership has LESS crime 
https://www.mic.com/articles/22835/gun-control-facts-detroit-crime-rate-is-the-result-of-gun-control ;

ZeusAres42

@Zombieguy1987

I can ceritanly tell you, gun control doesn't work, and ironically countries/cities/states/whatever, that have composaey gun ownership has LESS crime 
https://www.mic.com/articles/22835/gun-control-facts-detroit-crime-rate-is-the-result-of-gun-control ;

Firstly, I would just like to point out that I have made some alterations to my original post which you can see from about a few pages back from this one as I couldn't edit my original post. Based on some further reading there are some things where I agree that I would have to change my mind about what I said whereas in other things my stance remains unchanged.

Moreover, as for gun control, it depends on what you mean by this first of all. I personally am not for a complete ban in the US or for stopping and/or making it extremely difficult for guns getting into the hands of responsible law-abiding citizens. I am for, however, ways in which could reduce the guns getting into the hands of irresponsible people and criminals both legally and illegally.

Furthermore, if we're going to use statistics then I think we could get a far more accurate picture from samples representative of a much larger and wider population as opposed to one city in Michigan. Detroit could indeed have the second highest murder rate but the reason for this could rest on a plethora of varying factors.  For the source to conclude that the reason why Detroit has the second highest murder rate is because of how strict the gun laws are to me is just simplistic thinking and either an intentional or unintentional attempt to not take into account other varying factors as to why it has the second highest murder rate.

In conclusion, I don't see this being enough to persuade someone that all forms of gun control in every city and state won't work because it doesn't work in Detroit which has very stringent laws making it hard for even law-abiding citizens. 

John_C_87

@Zombieguy1987 ;

Gun control does work. The truth here is in how it works and why in basic principle, if not in reduction of crime then how does it work. By publicly changing the burden of application of lethal force, is this a truth that can be proven? Can Gun control be used so some-one else must always hold the blame for a death as a united state. Is this better than a military draft system? When every one must own a gun everyone shares equal in the burden of lethal force with a gun, basic principle, harsh reality. Tests, taxes, responsibility all become equal. in one step. When that burden is legally lost every one will also be able to see it as having been lost by that person. 

A law might be more effective in the holding and transportation of a loaded weapon and locked weapon. Where gun deaths may, or may not increase the burden of lethal force does not get singed it is put on the democracy directing exposure to danger by insuring a independence. Everyone who walks into a store knows they may be shot, it is not just the store owner who is directed into the line of fire. The thief who then walks into the store with a gun, or without knows in advance every one in the store, bank or home will have a gun.


The analogy her is do we want to make a left turn? Yes? We want to turn right? No, We want to turn left. Right is said left. Turn left? Do this again or just say correct? Turn left? Correct.

"A person can be the registered weapon. They are no more dangerous with a weapon than without, they are the weapon. Sometimes a right is really just a correct."

Rights reserved.

TKDB

https://abcnews-go-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/US/lapd-releases-dramatic-police-shootout-chase/story?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&id=63274462&usqp=mq331AQDoAEC#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://abcnews.go.com/US/lapd-releases-dramatic-police-shootout-chase/story?id=63274462 

"LAPD releases dramatic video of police shootout following chase"

"After a short pursuit, the driver suddenly stopped and exited the car, then ran with a gun into the Pueblo Del Rio public housing project in LA's Central-Alameda neighborhood, Espinoza said.

The two officers chased after the driver, who they described as a black male, the video shows. But then, a second man wearing in a white shirt, who was later identified as Curley Duff, is seen approaching one of the officers, Enrique Trujillo, the video shows.

Duff, 39, pulled out a handgun from his waistband and shot at Trujillo, who then fired back several shots. Both men were injured in the gunfire. The first officer then doubled back to assist his partner."

The Second Amendment needs to be Amemded with Capital Punishment, because of incidents like the above.

Because in a sense, the second police officer, was apparently ambushed by the second man wearing a white t shirt?