[{quoted}](name=J Wilson,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=cqEmp802,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-09-06T17:34:50.157+0000)
You say you don't want a debate, then you post a long reply : ) . It is all good, i dont get a buzz from debating, i just like seeing other peoples point of view. im fascinated so many people have so many different opinions.
Well, I didn't want to, but I got carried away...
Anyways, that argument to me though doesnt make any sense. You cant blame every gun owner for the choices of the very few who are not responsible. That just seems like bad parenting.
But you can, and that's what I do, blame the regulation and the culture that creates and enables the society where these few irresponsible can easily do sh*t. Especially when what is to gain for the responsible majority on the other hand is pretty much negligible.
Say you have 5 kids, all of which own pocket knives. 4 of the kids use the pocket knives to carve figures out of wood, while the 1 gets bored and likes to throw his around like a throwing knife. One day he throws it through the front window of the neighbors house. Do you blame all the kids for that incident, or do you just focus on the irresponsible one?
I, as a parent, wouldn't give knifes to children in the first place. At least not until they are responsible enough to understand they shouldn't throw it. And the difference between a parent and society is that you can treat your kids case by case, whereas society has to establish general rules and assume there will be bad corner cases and abuses.
Punishing everyone who owns a gun is actually pretty stupid considering how many lives are saved by responsible gun owners and concealed carry yearly.
As far as I know, that's not true. Provide a source for that statement.
That is why i brought up the drug argument, it was not about how drugs are self inflicting and guns are not, it was to look at how drugs have always been around even when there are laws regulating and banning them.
Yes, but guns haven't, because the main purpose of a gun is to hurt people and blow stuff, whereas the main purpose of drug is recreation.
If guns are more regulated, do you think (like the drugs) that they will still remain as well?
Well, case in point, most of Europe doesn't have guns. The case in the US may be complicated by the fact that guns are already there, but it's definitely possible -- proof by example -- to have a society without guns, contrary to a society without drugs.
Also, who do you feel like that will affect more, the responsible owners, or the criminals? [...]
Well, the thing is, in the US, simple robbers have guns. In the Europe, they don't. Because it's harder to get one, and a knife or a bat or anything else is largely enough to threaten an unarmed poor guy you're trying to mug. By not having gun easily accessible you're ALSO disincentiving the bad guys. And you end up with people robbed (but not more than in the US), and much, much fewer people dead by firearms. So yes, maybe the responsible owners are "more" affected, whatever that means, but you still improve the society overall.
"Easy access" or not, if someone is planning a murder i feel like they will find a way if they are serious, with or without a firearm.
Problem is not murderers, problem is all the accidents, fights that wouldn't be lethal and all the other situations where guns are involved just because they are easy access and that result in someone dying where no one would have died if there was no gun.
So you are left with criminals with weapons, good guys with nothing in comparison if that happened.
Already said it above, but let me rephrase: you are left with bad guys with no reason to use lethal weapons, and that most of the time won't use them and take the risk of killing someone --- 30 years in prison, whereas a "simple" robbery would be something like 10 years max.
Im big on gun rights, no doubt, because i understand how they protect me and how they protect other people.
Except they don't, for all the reasons mentioned above, but ...
I check my facts and I double check them again.
... then give me your sources, I'm curious.
People then freak out saying guns are bad. However, our President omitted that 60 percent are suicides. That is self inflicted, that is not gun violence.
Even if you completely exclude suicide, death rate by firearm is literally 15 times higher in the US than in France. 40 times higher than in Germany. 30 times than in the UK. And on, and on... Even if you exclude this 60%, your 40% remaining is still huge, and guns are still bad. (And "fun" fact, in France, the proportion of suicide among all death by firearm is 90%, not 60%. So, the fact that it's only 60% in the US could be interpreted as "you use guns to kill each others much more than in France". It's similar all across Europe.)
Still, that was not gun violence. People have to look closer at the statistics instead of blindly following what they hear on the news.
Yeah, precisely... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
You're welcome.
Also, mass shootings. You think that more laws would prevent crime, when in fact it is the opposite. From 1998-2015, it has been recorded around 96.2 of the mass public shootings were in "gun free zones." The other 3.8 ish percent were in gun allowed zones. Crazy how that works. It is like the criminal doesnt want to get shot or something. So instead of going where guns are allowed, he goes where there will be no guns.
Hum, by "gun free" versus "gun allowed" zones, are you referring to something small scale like, a school where it's forbidden to bring a gun? If yes, that's just a ridiculous argument... If no, please enlighten me about what you actually mean...
And while we're on the topic of mass shootings in school, usually by depressive and mentally ill teenagers, yes, I DEFINITELY think that more laws would prevent at least this kind of cases... Once again, proof by example, I've never heard of such a case in Europe. Doesn't mean there is none at all, but definitely means there are FAAAR less frequent than in your country. Because guns are rare, and hard to get by, and so a depressed teenager can't just steal one from his father or the neighbors or whatever...
Anyways, on to the part where i agree with you in part.
Yeah, no... I never talked about harsher punishments. Actually, I never talked about the punishing side of the issue at all. So don't lend me your words.
However, harsher punishments on people who have criminal backgrounds or who commit criminal acts would be very wise. Lots of times people who are convicted of assault or things like unto that will get out of jail, then end up committing another crime or even escalating upon their previous offense.
I strongly disagree with that statement, but I won't elaborate. I really don't want to start yet another pages long debate.
Yes, im sure they could still get or find a gun somehow someway if they really wanted to, but at least it would from criminals and not from an outstanding source in accordance to the law.
That is exactly the opposite of the argument you made above that the law only deter responsible owners and that criminals don't bother about laws... Make up your mind.
Apart from these laws, really outlawing guns for the responsible concealed carry and gun owners only limits those people from protecting themselves and others.
No, it creates a safer and nicer place where it's hard to get guns, and so where you're less likely to die from a gun, including from bad guys.
(although a little later addition to the annoying toxic champion collection).
has needed a rework since his introduction. His kit right now is literally just continuing to split push until your team loses or the enemy gets so sick of chasing you that you end up split pushing and killing their entire base solo. Its just such a lame and annoying play style. I still pride my self even after 6-7 years of playing this game of never playing the champion.
has been buffed/nerfed changed/fixed hundreds of times, but is still an annoying toxic play style champion. He just spends the game farming and after a couple of items has the ability to easily pentakill your team if not focused. I am all for a nicely timed Alpha strike to dodge abilities, but lets face it the skill cap on doing that currently is nothing. Do I feel I got outplayed when I die to a 
. Can't even run since well.. Yi ult 3 wack dead.
) , or a bat (
), or a rock (
).....Same thing here, sure someone can play 
the next game? Highly doubt it.
mid and expect people to love you. Just like you don't use a gun to harm other people(humans like yourself). If you use it for its intended purpose people think you are great! (taking 
build all 
. She could just as easily built all 
.
, he has been around forever. He is the KING of what people call a toxic champion. I have never seen a Rioter say they are going to rework him because he is "too toxic."
before his nerf).
players have to walk through a few creeps and dodge a couple of abilities to generally kill the entire team. Yi just attack some carries alpha strike out of cc once, kill most of team, alpha strike again, penta kill. Just think his kit is rather boring and way too simple for a champion who can completely kill a team in seconds.