[arcticbull]

>>> California.

It’s much easier to bring in illicit firearms across unmonitored state lines than national boundaries.

>>> I'd rather have individual rights and armed guards in the schools and places of worship.

Horrifying.

So taking away everyone’s right to feel safe and secure? Wonderful. And to be alive. That’s the problem, life is always trade offs. I don’t feel comfortable with everyone armed, that infringed on my rights. Any other country that took away guns, gun crime went down, that’s facts. The reality is you don’t need guns. I don’t need guns. I do however want to live. And I want my children to grow up in a country without mass shooter drills and metal detectors so you can pursue your hobby, because 300 years ago a few people thought everyone should have muskets and slaves. Constitutions are amendable for a reason.

Sounds like that trade off is just better.

[leereeves]

> Any other country that took away guns, gun crime went down, that’s facts.

Latin America has many countries with restrictive gun control and widespread gun crime. Brazil and Mexico have actually relaxed gun control so people can defend themselves[1,2]

But even if your claim were true, who cares if gun crime goes down if overall murder and crime rates don't? Are people better off if killed or mugged with other weapons?

1: https://theglobalobservatory.org/2019/02/brazil-most-homicid...

2: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexicos-vigilantes-legalized-an...

[arcticbull]

Brazil and Mexico are on the way to becoming failed states. If America moves towards a Mad Max future you can have your gun back. Until then, let's leave the shooting to the people trained to do so instead of literally anyone who wants to shoot. All the experts I've seen interviewed say people think they'll be awesome in a high-pressure situation like a shooting but unless they're actually trained specifically for it they'll likely harm people they didn't intend to.

[leereeves]

There are places in America that aren't much better than Brazil or Mexico. There are other places in America where help is hours away and defending yourself is the only option. And places where hunting is still a means of feeding families, as well as the primary method of managing animal populations.

By all means, ban guns in New York and San Francisco if that's what the people of those cities want, but don't impose your needs on people who live completely different lives.

[arcticbull]

If there are parts of America as lawless as Brazil and Mexico you need to re-evaluate your priorities. Giving those people guns and wishing them the best is just horrifying. Figure out how to repair the situation instead. Mad Max wasn't meant to be instructional, you know.

I'd also suggest your opinions about America are pretty divorced from the realities on the ground.

[leereeves]

> I'd also suggest your opinions about America are pretty divorced from the realities on the ground.

St Louis and Baltimore have murder rates as high as the worst countries in Latin America; much worse than Mexico or Brazil, and many more American cities murder rates are as high as Mexico or Brazil.

If you have effective ideas to improve that I'm sure they'd love to hear from you, but personally I'm not smart enough to fix every problem in society.

[arcticbull]

Great, the reason they’re shooting each other isn’t due to not having enough guns. Solve the real problem don’t throw up your hands and say shoot yourselves. Total anarchy isn’t better.

The reality is the shootings are a symptom of a real, meaningful social problem. They’re not the cause in and of themselves. At best allowing people to intimidate each other with weapons is masking the real problem and prolonging the pain of those suffering — while simultaneously giving untrained and unqualified vigilantes easy ways to hurt people. At worst, you’ve just made it easier for people to murder unchecked. We’ve had fairly lax gun policy for centuries so it’s pretty clear your plan to just arm everyone and hide in the sand from the real cause hadn’t worked so far, so why should it start now, all of a sudden?

[CarlSchmitt]

I live in a rural area with bears, mountain lions, and wolves...so I'll be keeping my guns for as long as I'm out here...I've killed 2 skunks in the last 3 months that would have killed my chickens...the parent comment on rural areas rings true to me.

[CarlSchmitt]

What about your fellow citizens who don't live in LA, SF, or NY?

Guns aren't a hobby out in my rural town...we have bears, mountain lions, and wolves ...and livestock to protect....you can choose to not buy a gun if you want but I'll always keep mine as long as I live around nature's predators...

[arcticbull]

Yep, 100%, and you should have them. You know, after a background check. And one shotgun or rifle, or some reasonable quantity of a type of weapon that meets your needs. No pistols or AR-15s. Norway has strict gun control regulations but require you possess one to leave the built up areas of Svalbard due to polar bears.

[CarlSchmitt]

Having a .45 ACP pistol saved my life so I think I'll be keeping that as well...jammed rifles don't defend well against bears