Anti-Gun Narrative

 First of all, the magazine limit is completely absurd. Virginia Tech remains the deadliest mass shooting on US soil, and the shooter there used only handguns with small magazines. We know he changed magazines at least 17 times and no one was able to stop him during a magazine change. With practice, an emergency reload can be done in about one second. A tactical, retention, or speed reload is slower but is done while the gun still contains a round in the chamber, ready to fire. If you don't know what those terms mean, you have no business discussing magazine capacity. It's also ridiculous because the fastest reload is another gun. You can always keep one in reserve.

Secondly, I'd like to know what country allows its citizens freedom to own and bear arms to the same extent that America does while keeping them out of the wrong hands. I agree that we would do well to emulate that country. Too bad it doesn't exist.

Third, even if you do have an ideal model, you have to account for differences between countries. No one else shares our culture, our socioeconomic disparity, our history, our porous borders. The examples you're most likely to point to are islands.

Fourth, even in countries where citizens can't get guns through legal channels, gun crime still exists. Look no further than Paris.

And finally, even if you keep guns only in the hands of only those who absolutely need them, there are no guarantees. Would you disarm the marines? What's to stop a marine, engineering student, and all sound stand-up guy from developing a brain tumor that makes him kill his own family and a dozen strangers?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

No amount of screening could have prevented that. Look at cops. They go through background checks, psychological evaluations, polygraph examinations, written tests involving mortality questions, physicals, and several interviews. Then they receive months of training, more months of mentoring, and qualification. And some of them are still making poor choices with their guns.

But guns aren't going away, so the military and police will continue to need them for the foreseeable future. You can't disarm everyone.

What you're suggesting is ludicrous and only serves as further proof that the knowledge in this debate is entirely on one side.

Idk why the country with a huge mass shooting problem as well as firearm accident problem doesn't follow the lead of the other countries that don't have those issues. I mean when so many other countries show such a vast difference between them and America, you can't really use the "Just because it works there doesn't mean it'll work here!" excuse. Its obviously worth the effort.... And again, that doesn't mean banning guns. It means way stricter gun laws than you have now. WIth extremely strict laws, everyone that shouldn't have a gun won't get one, but the people that deserve them and can handle them will still be able to get them.

I see parallels between this and things like foodstamps/wellfare. Republicans think that we should err on the side of giving out guns to everyone and just dealing with some crazy people that shouldn't have them and accepting those deaths as necessary, but also think we should err on the side of greediness and let some innocent poor people starve just so some free loaders don't get to live off the government. Obviously the flip side is Democrats who believe we should err on the side of some responsible people not being able to get guns which ends up in saving lives, while they also err on the side of allowing a few more free loaders to live off the government while making sure no innocent poor people starve and have a chance to get back on their feet.

TBH, I'd rather let 100 people get that awesome free welfare ride which really isn't awesome at all if it saves 1 family from living in squallor. And I'd definitely sacrifice 100 people's right to own whatever gun they want if it saves a single families lives. I know were supposed to be open minded and not look down on people just because they disagree with you, but I have no idea how you can disagree with this and still consider yourself a good person and a good American. You sound like a selfish greedy asshole that would rather let a family die just so some slacker can't collect some free money. Who cares if he gets on welfare even if he's capable of working? His life still sucks! And in the process you saved a family! And that's just small scale.

Just something to think about.